• (function() { (function(){function c(a){this.t={};this.tick=function(a,c,b){var d=void 0!=b?b:(new Date).getTime();this.t[a]=[d,c];if(void 0==b)try{window.console.timeStamp("CSI/"+a)}catch(l){}};this.tick("start",null,a)}var a;if(window.performance)var e=(a=window.performance.timing)&&a.responseStart;var h=0=b&&(window.jstiming.srt=e-b)}if(a){var d=window.jstiming.load;0=b&&(d.tick("_wtsrt",void 0,b),d.tick("wtsrt_","_wtsrt", e),d.tick("tbsd_","wtsrt_"))}try{a=null,window.chrome&&window.chrome.csi&&(a=Math.floor(window.chrome.csi().pageT),d&&0=c&&window.jstiming.load.tick("aft")};var f=!1;function g(){f||(f=!0,window.jstiming.load.tick("firstScrollTime"))}window.addEventListener?window.addEventListener("scroll",g,!1):window.attachEvent("onscroll",g); })();

    Monday, July 18, 2005

    The Liberals Blaming everyone but the Suicide Bombers AGAIN!

    It was only a few days ago that I posted my thoughts on the London bombings and how the media coverage can be so insane. In that post, I predicted that eventually the Liberal media (especially in London) would blame someone other than the fanatical, Islamo-Fascist, Suicide Civilian Murderers. Well, is anyone else surprised by the title of this article?

    "Blair fights talk Iraq made London terror target"

    Basically, the bombings are Blair's fault for taking on the war in Iraq, because it "...boosted recruitment and fund-raising for al Qaeda". How does responsibility shift from the murderers to Blair? The article also goes on to explain that because Britain is allied with the United States, London has in turn become a terror target, well that's a little obvious, we are at War you know. Gee, what are the British to do? "Say, Mr. Islamo-Fascists do you think if we stopped fighting the War on your ideal of taking over Western Civilization maybe you'd leave us alone, and just kill Americans and Jews? Oh, and in the meantime, you can live in our country, enjoy our freedom and prosperity, and at the same time, preach about how evil the West is, and teach your young sons and daughters that if ever the British take a stand against us "Righteous Muslims", to retaliate by blowing yourself up with C4 on a bus, train, or plane. Oh, and make sure you get as many women and children as possible; that would make you extra special to Allah."

    I suppose the media and Europeans thinks that our way of life comes without a cost. I don't understand Europeans, they of all should know what passivityand appeasement does- nothing! Do they really believe if we do nothing, and try to negotiate reasonably that it will stop Islamo Fascist terrorism? Was it not the media and the rest of the passive European leaders that figured Germany wasn't really going to try and take over Europe, and they weren't really systematically killing off the Jewish race. Even, our very own FDR stood by, and did nothing (until Pearl Harbor) while Churchill begged him to join in the cause to liberate Europe. I wonder what FDR's not so far off relative Teddy would have done? We know very well what he would have done.

    The point of the article is that involvement in Iraq caused the London bombings. I whole-heartedly disagree. I love how Blair's representative responds- "

    "The terrorists have struck across the world, in countries allied with the United States, backing the war in Iraq, and in countries which had nothing whatever to do with the war in Iraq," he told reporters in Brussels. "It is the responsibility of people in the civilised world to stand up to that terrorism and not provide them with any excuse whatsoever."

    To top it all off, here is some more proof of how biased the media is...

    "The arguments add to a handful of similar comments from minor political figures including maverick ex-Labour politician George Galloway and Charles Kennedy, leader of the country's third biggest party, the Liberal Democrats, who opposed the war."

    Wow, so if- a) you are a leader in the minority party b) a liberal and c) oppose the war- you are a "MAVERICK". I could have sworn the definition of a maverick was one who went on his own, away from the view of his party. Like my favorite maverick, John McCain.

    Hmmm, maybe we should be wary of the distinguished Senator from Arizona who is so often called a "Maverick". Is it because he is a maverick or that he is willing to toe closer to the liberal line of the issue? I've never heard Zell Miller called a Maverick, surely the former Democratic Senator from Georgia would fall easily into this category, but how many times has he been called a "Maverick"? Or how about Mr. Blair? He went against his party's wishes, but I've never heard him called a Maverick.

    Isn't it funnny how the media portrays Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush as the evil twins of the West, yet the PEOPLE keep re-electing them. Hmmm, something is just not right, maybe more people really do think this war is worth fighting, and that doing nothing will only allow these Islamo Fascists to instill fear without consequence, and without end.

    Thank you Mr. Blair for sticking to what's best for the sake of Western Civilization, and not for your polls and media opinion.


    At 7/18/2005 2:26 PM, Blogger *the queen* said...

    Isn't ironic how our own media seems to be out to get US and put our guys' lives on the line by bashing their own country, quite often for the lone sake of having a story!?


    Post a Comment

    << Home