Not that there is a whole lot of difference between the two. Both want to turn the world into some sort of Paradise. Of course, Muslims are more then happy to use violent means to their end. Liberals, not so much.
Rusty Shackleford over at The Jawa Report
Our nemesis Samir Khan [aka, “inshallahshaheed”] over at the “Ignored Puzzle Pieces of Knowledge” is talking about the Mumbai massacre over at this blog. I don’t think long time readers will be shocked that he offers no words of condemnation. Only equivocation and justification.
The crux of his argument is the same used by Salafist extremists of his ilk in their routine justification of al Qaeda and Taliban attacks on civilians: okay, so, you people kill innocent Muslims all the time. Classic equivocation.
Rusty goes on to provide many, many, many examples from Sammy and other American Muslims. Check them out. And then check out I blame the terrorists for terror, but we fed the beast. A history,” which is a long screed about how Booosh and America have enabled the terrorists, written right as the Mumbai attacks were going on
After 9/11 the world stood with the United States. In less than two years George Bush destroyed all that good will with America’s singular, dishonest, and reckless destruction of Iraq for what the whole world knew lay undrilled beneath Iraq’s terrain.
Our enemies in the region exploded, because of Iraq and because of George Bush. The Iraqi people bled and died as pawns in a power vacuum created by George Bush. American, Saudi, Kuwaiti, Iranian, and Syrian backed forces jostled for power and lay that nation to waste while George Bush took no serious steps to quell the violence. Al-Qaeda came to Iraq and expanded its cells around the world, always growing both weaker and wider in a sickening paradox. Neighbors turned on neighbors and violence and disease spread, while Americans lost interest and turned off CNN.
Because there was no terrorism before Bush. The liberal mindset. Hey, maybe they hate us because Clinton turned his back on 850,000 Rwandans as they were being slaughtered. Just as plausible a theory, eh?
For all the horrors done in my name; for all the suffering caused directly and indirectly by my tax dollars; for all the terrorists motivated, recruited, and armed by the hatred of George W Bush’s policies; for all the damage Bush did to America’s reputation and good will, humanity still–and perhaps naively still–looks to the United States to lead the way to a better tomorrow. How can this be? How are we all so lucky that the world hasn’t risen yet in arms to topple the last standing superpower? History all but demands this to happen. And yet they don’t turn on us.
Bucky then provides the long winded answer: hope ‘n change! And
So I’m just saying that, for me, I hope we, as a country, as a people, use this chance that history is granting us to make better choices this time around. We are blessed with great power and we have used it badly. We have not truly atoned for our sins. I don’t think we have the political will or resilience to atone for what our president has done. The collateral blood stains my hands too.
Put succinctly, America is at fault. The followers of the “religion of peace” only got mad because of George Bush.
Let’s find more wacko liberals
- It’s stunning to me after reading these posts for a couple days how much the woo woo cons piracy wackadoos and the Islamic jih adis and the right wind neo-con-na zis think in exactly the same way. I’d say we should round them all up and send them to Antarctica where they could hash it all out and leave the rest of us reasonable humans alone to live our lives.
- Which will be the first news agency to suggest that it was possibly the CIA. My guess is some outlet in France–the only Western media with any balls, which is why we hate them.
- Good point-it could have certainly been a false flag attack-there’s an air of sketchiness about the whole deal…For example: Who did it?!!
- The U.S. will go to war with Pakistan now. The oil and gas pipelines originating in the Caspian Basin and running through Afghanistan, thanks to our invasion and occupation in 2001, must now continue on to the sea ports. Iran is also another likely sight for future invasions.
- Why would you rule them out? I guess the memory is a little cloudy and the only difference between this and 9 11 is the number of people.
- the first thing i thought was cia or moo sad
- The war on terror was and still is an oxymoron. Obama should concentrate on the economy. Bush has fueled so much hatred against Americans by fighting terrorism with the US army. Your ridiculous army actions have nearly bankrupted the USA and done nothing good. When Obama “focuses” on Afghanista, they will kick your butt as they did with the Russians. (see, it is Bush’s fault. How dare he fight back!)
- “Who was behind the attacks”? Well we may not know their names……..or whatever name they want to call their “movement” or whatever…….but we know where they’re from don’t we?That’s right….on Jan 20th Pakistan will RE-assume their position as THE single greatest threat to peace and security worldwide
- (reply to the above comment) Because right now Pakistan is number two, behind the United States.
And for the “Nanny will take care of me” comment
Use of a personal sidearm would most likely contribute to the mayhem & many innocents could be injured or worse… the police could mistake you for one of the attackers.
What you say is VERY wise..
It’s like good common sense WHEREVER you are…. checking for fire exits & such.
Here in Southern California, it becomes second nature to plan an escape in case of a quake.
Got that? Run away, run away!
Oh, wait, it is originally the Brits fault
- Boy, did the British F*.*k up the region or what?
- Then WE took over.
- funny ….who do you think is behind the federal reserve??the bank of england……….they english empire has made a mess of everything
Weird people.
Does anybody else think that they are angry because every time they state a reason for their actions (jihad, religion, etc.), they are told by the left that that’s not “really” the reason they are angry. The real reason is the economy, global warming, or some other such nonsense. And the kicker is that when they do carry out a well planned attack, the left is quick to fix blame to anybody else (CIA, military, Bush, etc.) because those poor brown skinned people could never have planned such a coordinated attack, it is beyond their abilities. Or the: they don’t REALLY do it for religious convection, and if we just approach them with our euro-centric value system that we believe to be universal, obviously peace will occur.
There always seems to be an amazing amount of latent racism and culture hegemony displayed by the these people.
I’m hearing reports that it was only ten terrorists. Could someone tell me how only ten could hit ten sites and do this much damage?
You make some excellent points, John. The left act like shrinks telling someone who drinks too much that they drink because they hate their mother, not because they like to drink. Sooner or later, the Left has to take extremist Islam at face value. Or not. It is the “reality based community,” after all.
There are some reports that there were more people then 10, Maggie, but, it might take some time to know for sure. This shows what can happen when you have motivated people who take advantage of the security situation.