Archive for the 'Stephen Hadley' Category

Bush lies but Islam is still at war with us

January 29, 2007

Bush’s basic problem is that after 9-11 he lied about the Saudi and Pakistan role before 9-11 in supporting terrorism. He has lied about their role after. See Complete 9-11 Timeline for evidence that Pakistan and Saudi were complicit in 9-11.

Bush has dithered with Iran and North Korea. Bush has allowed China to get our stealth and night vision. The Bush family has odd links to China and Saudis. Bush allowed Muslim immigration after 2001 attacks as Clinton did after 1993 attacks.

Bush is disloyal to us on legal and illegal immigration, as was Clinton. Bush lied about Islam in his religion of peace speech. Some of this we might consider tactics, but all of it has to show stupidiy and incompetence.

Bush should have raised 2 million more troops after 9-11 and conquered all the lands against us, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, one after another in 2 years. That’s what he should do now. Instead, he wants to fight house to house in Baghdad with 20 thousand men to help Maliki.

Bush vents so much stupidity so fast, that he destroys support for even what makes sense, our own survival.

Stephen J. Hadley

Washington Post
Monday, January 29, 2007; Page A15
Stephen Hadley in WaPo Baghdad is Key reader Comments

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007012800922&start=241

Bush lacks action. He lacks victories. After 9-11, he had a mandate to defeat all the Middle East countries that had decades of hate and action against us. He could have raised an army and defeated all of them in 2 years. Instead, he was busy with nonsense like religion of peace. He built a mandate against action. By continuing immigration, he said there was no problem. Bush has pursued policies which imply propositions that are contradictory. If Muslims and Islam are no threat, why are we in Iraq? Why do we worry that Iran will have nukes? Why do we let Pakistan have nukes but not Iran? Why did we let Pakistan and Saudi Arabia off for 9-11. Nothing makes sense. It is the Bush idiocy. It is the decider mentality. A fool who thinks he can say anything and do anything with inconsistent actions among themslves, statements among themselves and between the set of statements and actions. You can pick the contradictions like a Chinese menu.

==

quote To place a quarter of the worlds population into a big negative homogeneous lump, without any regard for their individual opinions, is practically the definition of bigotry. … You sir, are an idiot.

By jerrymcm1970 | Jan 29, 2007 4:49:01 PM end quote
Christian Cleansing Chart data.
Percentage of Christians in Muslim lands. Turkey 1923 15 percent, Now 1 percent

Syria 1920 33 percent, Now 10 percent

Iraq 1970 5.8 percent, Now 2.65 percent

Jerusalem 1922 53 percent, Now 2 percent

Bethlehem 1948 85 percent, Now 12 percent

9-11 was a pogrom of Christians and Jews.

Source London Times. All my staff at the church have been killed – they disappeared Stephen Farrell, Jerusalem and Rana Sabbagh Gargour, Amman Times Online December 23, 2006. As Muslim percentages increased in Muslim lands in the 19th and 20th centuries, their genocide of Christians in those lands went up.

aterronez6 | Jan 29, 2007 1:57:37 PM I missed your comment earlier. First, the Christian Cleansing Chart above shows that Muslim genocide or expulsion of Christians in Muslim lands has accelerated in the last 2 centuries. Istanbul was over 50 percent Christian in 1914, and Anatolia 30 to 40 percent depending on stats. Today Turkey is 98 to 99 percent Muslim. The Quran has the doctrine of abrogation. At Skeptics Annotated Quran online, you can put the Quran in chrono order. Repentance is 2nd to last in that order. It abrogates the rest of the Quran and orders unrelenting slaughter and conquest of the rest of mankind as John Quincy Adams said. Muhammad started with pogroms of Jews and his followers with those of Christians. Jesus and his disciples were killed. The core of the religions is opposite. They are invading us by immigration and we are going to let them have our own nukes with prayer rugs on B2 bombers and prayer rooms in missile silos and on subs.

By jerrymcm1970 | Jan 29, 2007 4:49:01 PM quote OldAtlantic, calling you a bigot is not a betrayal, its stating the bloody obvious. end quote. In 1992, Buchanan said stop immigration. Begala, Stephanopoulos, Clinton, etc. used the bigot card then. When Muslim immigrants attacked WTC in 1993, they said and did nothing. Why? Because to stop immigration then would be to admit they played the bigot card on Buchanan in 1992. So they let in theh 19 hijacker immigratns from 1993 to 2001. After 2001, they did the same, preemptively played the bigot card on the very day of 9-11. This was intended to silence the 9-11 families and everyone else including Buchanan from pointing this out. Begala pulled the same play against Bay Buchanan on Wolf Blitzer by launching into a scripted attack on Virgil Goode as an idiot and a bigot. Sound familiar?

==

quote It has to be a massive, yet secret, genocide. end quote
jerrymcm1970 | Jan 29, 2007 5:28:57 PM Sources on the genocide of Armenians by the Young Turks in the 20th century are at my website. You can search on Christian Genocide Turkey. A debate on redstate on this can also be found. If they were expelled or displaced by Muslim birth rate, what happens when the Muslims come here? All of the reasons you give are reasons to stop Muslim immigration completely.

==

jerrymcm1970 | Jan 29, 2007 5:28:57 PMquote You are suggesting that 1.5 BILLION people are all murderously anti-christian. That is beneath contempt. Did you ever consider that the numbers you quote might be due to migration or higher birth rates among muslims? end quote In 633 AD, Islam attacked the West and conquered half the area around the Med sea. According to your comment, there is a number, like 1 billion, such that above that number, they can’t act to pull off conquest but below that number they can? What is this number? The Christian Cleansing Chart shows that in the 20th century they cleansed their lands of Christians. Turkey went from 30 to 40 percent Christian to 1 to 2 percent. The more of them there are, the more aggressive they should be. Yet you claim there exists a break point, that they become non-aggressive above a certain population and conquered many lands when their population was below it. Why?

==

When did they pass the magic breakpoint when they became non-violent and tolerant to Christians and Jews in their own lands and other lands? Aren’t they fighting Israel? Didn’t Jewish populations have to leave Muslim lands after WWII?

Wasn’t the intifada based on the Koran? Didn’t they send their own teenage children to die as suicide bombers against Israel? When has that happened in history? Doesn’t this show they are still aggressive?

Didn’t Pakistan go to war with India in 1998, after both did their nuclear tests in the spring? Isn’t that aggression? Doesn’t that violate the hypothesis of a break point in behavior based on population above which their behavior towards non-Muslims in their lands and outside them becomes turned to non-violence?

What evidence is there of such behavior? When they can, don’t they attack us and kill us? Isn’t that their history from 633 AD to present? We simply had more and better weapons in the last 2 centuries, but they still attacked us every change they got. They were taking slaves of Europeans in 1800, even when behind them.

They don’t stop until occupied in ground invasions. They didn’t stop taking Europeans slave on the high seas until Europe send troops into North Africa and occupied Algeria and Morocco in the 19th century.

==

jerrymcm1970 | Jan 29, 2007 5:46:05 PM quote Nine of the 19 hijackers were here illegally and the INS have no idea how six of them even entered the country. end quote You mean the 9 overstayed their visas? Here illegally is a weasel phrase to avoid that they entered illegally?

==

reply jerrymcm1970 | Jan 29, 2007 5:46:05 PM. Also, after 9-11, the Blair and Labour said it was Muslims in the US who were violent, not those in the UK. After the London attacks, US elites said it was Muslims in the UK who are violent, those born there, and not Muslims in the US, despite WTC 93 and 9-11 attacks. Bush and Blair each say our Muslims are tame, his are violent, even after the attacks in their own countries.

==

By rrt | Jan 29, 2007 5:33:45 PM | quote OddAtlantic, go back to your racist church and remember how many people have been killed under Christianity! Maybe you forgot your high school history lessons above the Native Americans or the witch hunts of the 17th century, or the inqusitions of the 18th century or the WWI and WWII? end quote. No amount of past violence can prove that Muslims are non-violent. No past violence is a reason to let Muslims kill us now. We should stop Muslim immigration because past and current violence indicates it is likely to happen. If we think we are violent, don’t we think they are at least as violent as we? So we should stop them from immigrating here. We should keep them from getting nukes. We should keep them off our B2 bombers and take the Korans out of our missile silos and nuclear submarines and B2 air bases.

==

You can’t prove Muslims are non-violent today from anyone’s violence in the past.

==

The Begala Bigot Idiot Play gets around.

==

No amount of genocide by anyone in the past is a predictor of the stoppage of genocide by Muslims. In fact, if one argues that genocide is (IID) independently and identically distributed of cultures, religions, etc. that is a reason to think Muslims are just as capable of it.

If genocide is IID then it can happen anytime. So we should stop Muslim immigration and keep them from getting nukes.

If genocide is IID we should not let them man our own B2 bombes, missile silos, atomic artillery shells, submarines, etc. Nor should we have a mosque at Quantico Marine base. Nor should we have CAIR blessing its construction.

The arguments given are that only we are violent and no one else is. Therefore we should have Muslim immigration to keep us from being violent, by the pacifist and responsible Muslims who have a religion and history of non-violence and no genocide. But that is clearly false.

==

Islamophobia.

The Quran commands that infidels fear Islam. If infidels don’t submit to Islam, the Quran commands they be killed. Slay them where you find them, Quran 9:5, unless they submit and pay the Jizyah tax. Bin Laden 1998 Fatwa, slay the Americans civilian and military whereever you find them.

So infidels who don’t fear Islam and submit to it are to be killed according to the Quran. So the Quran commands Islamophobia. Islamophobia is extreme fear. Submission to Islam out of fear of being killed as the Quran commands is linked to extreme fear. Thus the Quran commands extreme fear of Islam, i.e. Islamophobia.

Anything that says to a group, if you don’t submit you will be killed is attempting to create extreme fear in the target group. Tamerlane, a Muslim general, piled up 70,000 skulls after at least one of his battles when a town failed to submit. The idea was to make towns not fight but submit with out a fight. That is trying to create Islamophobia by killing masses of people.

That is true in the history of Islam from 633 AD to now. They have always been doing that. So they have always been trying to create Islamophobia in infidels. Why? Because the Quran commands it. They believe every word of the Quran is Allah speaking.

==

Bush tries to appeal to those who are for the war in Iraq, for immigration, for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, don’t remember 9-11, are unsure about Iran and North Korea, want Mexicans on welfare and engaged in crime and are for China taking our best jobs here and there.

==Bible and Quran are both violent Fallacy.

Muhammad had people’s arms and legs chopped off. Jesus was crucified by the Romans. So the Bible and Quran are equally violent. One has to distinguish. Talking about victims of violence does not make for equality or sameness with those who engage in violence and then say Allah commands it, as Muhammad did.

==

Muhammad had peoples arms and legs chopped off. Muhammad had Jewish men killed and their women and children made slaves. Jesus and his disciples were crucified by the Romans. This doesnt make the Bible and the Quran equally violent. This doesnt make Jesus and Muhammad the same because Jesus was killed by crucifixation and Muhammad had peoples arms and legs chopped off and left to die.

%d bloggers like this: