March 02, 2005

Bring it On?

UPDATE:Fake, but accurate
UPDATE:John Marshall's slip, What Liberals Really Think We Are At War With.

Like I said, they believe the War on Terror should more appropriately be termed the "War on AL-Qaeda", which makes it a local, not global, war. You can catch these beliefs only in passing, because they will NEVER tell them to you honestly.

The Bush administration also insists that our right to act preemptively and unilaterally, with or without the international community's formal approval, rests on the need to protect American lives. But with the exception of al Qaeda, most terrorist organizations in the world, and certainly in the Middle East, do not target Americans. Hamas certainly doesn't. Hezbollah, the most fearsome of terrorist organizations beside al Qaeda, has killed American troops in the Middle East, but not for some years, and it has never targeted American civilians on American soil. Yet like Hamas, Hezbollah has an extensive fundraising cell operation in the States (as do many terrorist organizations, including the Irish Republican Army). If we target them in the Middle East, can't we reasonably assume they will respond by activating these cells and taking the war worldwide?
Local, not GLOBAL.
---------------------------------------------------------
In the Palestinian elections, boycotted by the Islamists, a fairly solid turnout split the votes between Mahmoud Abbas and Mustapha Barghouti, the latter of whom scored an impressive 20 percent or so for a secular program. Where Hamas has done well in local elections in Gaza, it has been due to grass-roots welfare and social policy as much as to intransigent anti-Zionism, and it's possible to imagine the organization evolving, as has Hezbollah in Lebanon, into a quasi-political party with seats in the assembly. The logic of this, all rhetoric to one side, points largely in one direction.


I am thinking of two things right now. The first one in chronological order is that these Hamas dudes are taking in money, through ME charities, and using it to breed hate in their own people. Coincidentally, that hate is directed against the most charitable people on this Earth, Americans. In the past, Americans give the most because they have the most to give. And they have the most to give because our taxes are the lowest. Europe wants to give, they want to give so much they will even give other people's money. Unfortunately for Europe, and fortunate for the victims of Palestinian suicide bombings, Europe has too much things to pay for at home to give too much away abroad. Either collectively by the ironhand of the state or individually, through the charity of their citizens. So, in a case of injustice which represents history since time immemorial, the Americans gave these charities, which were just fronts for Hamas, money that Hamas then would use to make themselves popular. So instead of thanking the Americans for alleviating their craptastic lives, the Palestinians thank Hamas. And Hamas relays that thanks to Americans, via anti-Semitic greeting cards in the form of suicide organic torpedoes to Israel.

The second thing I was thinking about chronologically, was what Bush said. "Bring it on", he said to the terroists.

And I must seriously echo that. If Hamas thought that Bin Laden's little tit a teat helped their cause at all, I want to know what they are smoking. Because now every freaking American with a pair realizes that giving any money whatsoever to the Middle East, means that there is a chance it can be filtered to Al-Qaeda. So that means money is drying up for the terroists, not AL-Qaeda as they seemed to have got their finances from Saddam and other retard Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia in the form of blackmail, but terroists all the same. The American people do associate terroist groups as the same threat as Al-Qaeda, it is simply only the fake liberals who speak about Al-Qaeda as the end all and be all to "terroism".

9/11 backfired on Hamas. Backfired on Hizbullah. Heck, it backfired on a hell of a lot people. And many of them are actually in hell right now, if you are Christian. If you're not, then they are just dead, which is good enough for those of us who like to pile them up like logs.

So, given that Bush told em to "bring it on" and they "brought it on", the media went totally APE SHIT over this. Colmes, etc, whatever. All of the fake liberals kept talking with schadenfreude, how Bush killed himself with that phrase. When in effect, that phrase was THE EXACTLY RIGHT THING TO SAY.

Goading the terroists on, is not going to give them any more incentive than their hate filled, depression addicted, misery spreading biatches already provide. By "bringing it on" in Iraq, Bush simply made them overcommitt themselves as Osama did on 9/11. This time we were the ones on the offensive. Old Z-Man now has so pissed off the Iraqis, that the Iraqis have nothing to lose... and everything to gain by spitting in Z-Man's face. They've already experienced the sheer miserious oppression of Saddam, the fear of death knocking on the door every day. Z-Man doesn't provide anything additional, except the same motivation anyone would have had when face to face with Uday and Qusay. The Coalition, however, DID provide something new. And given a choice between serving Z-Man and his deathsquads, and serving their own livelyhoods and happiness through American style democracy, they chose the obvious choice. They told the BBC, the CNN, ABC, MSNBC, The Guardian, The Australian, and any other editorial disguising themselves as newsreports, to go fuck themselves. With an IED and a purple finger no less. They were ready to take fate by the horns and headbutt her, and they weren't going to listen to some liberal, fascist, socialist crap, especially when that crap tried to do using pacifism what Saddam did using the secret police. Propaganda ain't effective if you're not willing to kill dissentors, the British have lost their memories of WWII propaganda obviously.

Fake liberals have spoken much about how "Bush" was an incompetent ass for going after the "low hanging fruit" that was Iraq. Many on the right, me included, saw this as simply smart. You don't attack the enemy's strongpoint, you go around and flank his ass. Only an IDIOT, and a fake liberal one at that, would charge up to the hill on his high horse and demand a frontal charge. His troops would likely charge "him" rather than the hardened enemy position, if he's the kind of leader who can't think his way around a circle.

These fake liberals, these socialists and pacifists, these breeds of human contrived "isms", would be starving you see. And instead of reaching for the "low hanging fruit", they would reach for the god damned highest fruit on the freaking tree. Of course, reaching that high would expend so much energy, that by the time he nearly reached the fruit, he would have fallen on his ass and never got back up again. Why you ask? Because he would have finally succumbed to hunger... now he is eating the grass because reaching for the juiciest fruit on the highest branch took too long.

Great. And the real world is even more complex than that. The real world has a guy up near the tree and his entire family is fracking starving. In a case of life and death, what you gonna do? Reach for the straggly low hanging fruit or the juicy full bodied fruit at the top? Liberals will whine and complain if you give them a mangled up fruit, so you'd better reach for the HIGHEST one even though you know you'll faint long before you can get it. You're the slave, they're the masters, listen to the fake liberals why dontcha.

If these Leftist humanity scorning liberals would take even 10 seconds to think through their talking points, they might realize that criticizing the people feeding them and their lazy ass constituents might not be the most wise of all possible policies. Now they're going to say that eating the nasty mangled up fruit was all their idea, which was to get enough strength so we can climb the tree for the harder to get fruit.

right

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home