Duncan Avatar has this over at the Parrot Check and because I follow this stuff, I was absolutely taken aback. The Moraccan who killed Theo Van Gogh for his movie “Submission” said this in court to Theo’s mother:
“I cannot feel for you … because I believe you are an infidel.â€
The 27-year-old Dutch-Moroccan national, Mohammed Bouyeri, will be getting life in prison without parole. To top off his insolence, he had this to say in the courtroom:
“I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do exactly the same, exactly the same,†he said, speaking slowly in sometimes halted Dutch.
He deserves to be another dead terrorist. I don’t think we can ever have enough dead terrorists.
He also said:
“I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion,” 27-year-old Dutch-Moroccan national Mohammed Bouyeri told the court in Amsterdam on the final day of his trial.
Duncan also points out that the terrorist attacks in London were carried out by people who used MILITARY EXPLOSIVES. Now THAT is an unsettling thought.
And to further prove that they are EVIL, terrorists now blew up several Iraqi children and one U.S. soldier handing out candy to them.
Pingback: Danny Carlton (aka Jack Lewis)
This is sick. These terrorists need to be wiped off the face of the Earth. But what is even more sad and depressing is the fact that the left in America is doing all they can to aid these terrorists by protesting the Iraq war and the Patriot Act. Great Post.
Pingback: Hyscience
Pingback: NIF
Christianity has it’s fair share of zealots and mis-guided morons. Will we start attacking them the next time a murderer says “God told me to do it”?
“But what is even more sad and depressing is the fact that the left in America is doing all they can to aid these terrorists by protesting the Iraq war and the Patriot Act.”
actually, I’m a liberal and I happen to completely oppose terrorism. i agree completely with this post and that an terrorists deserve to rot, regardless.
i would have supported a war in Iraq based on fact, but i can’t support one based on half-truths nor one which causes such hatred and vitriol among the very people who are claiming that “united we stand.”
it just doesn’t make sense.
Well you are siding with the terrorists, then. I find it amazing that people think this was Bush’s war considering of Islamofascist attacks on the US all the way back to 1968, and Hussinandterror.com. A lot of us, when Bush finally put his foot down, said “finally someone’s doing something about this!” Bush finally took the bull by the horns and went after a nation that supported terrorism, trained the pilots that attacked us on 9/11 at Salmon Pak, and also trained the people behind the OK City bombing, and welcomed them home afterwards. You can see more on that coverup at Jayna Davis’ website or read her book, the Third Terrorist. It’s convenient to say “we went to Iraq for all the wrong reasons and that’s why I don’t support the war”. But the fact is, we’re committed, we’re there, and by saying that you’re undermining what it is we’re accomplishing there, and making it more difficult for our people who are serving.
You are hurting the morale of our fighting forces who make it possible for you to sleep in peace at night. By saying this stuff, you are working in parallel with those who would kill them. As long as you oppose, you support another point of view. In this case, you are supporting evil, close-minded, misogynist, fascist terrorists and killers who do not differentiate between their victims which has been proven around the world with every timed, homicide, or road-side bomb (which they proudly film for the world to see over and over again). These people are far, far worse as individuals and through action than the president ever will be. And you seem to support them as a matter of what…? Principle? What is that about?
Attack the president all you want if you feel his vision and reaction to unprecedented attacks against our country and his desire to hold a dictator accountable for his commitments and his failure to honor them.
As far as Christianity having its crazies, I think that’s just moral relativism. Just think about it: How many Christians have blown up buildings, blown up their own, how many Christians are raising their children like the jihadis are, to kill the “unbelievers wherever you find them”?
That comes from the Qu’ran. Murder isn’t based on Christian principles, but defending your family and your loved ones is.
Listen to the rhetoric of the islamo-fascists whether they are in Iraq, Saudi, Pakistan, the UK, Canada, Afghanistan, France, Germany, or Egypt, they all want the same thing, to replace the Western way of life.
They could care less who our president is or who leads the UN. They want to replace our way of life – your way of life – with something archaic and backwards based on a religion which is far more vicious on our “tolerant†society than the most fundamental Christians will ever be. How many women have acid thrown in their faces because their husbands were suspicious of them, or jealous of them? How many women do you know who had gasoline doused on them and set on fire? How many Christian honor killings have your heard of? How many Christians have lost their hands over theft? How many adulterers have been stoned to death by Christians? How many Christians have you heard declare their desire to form a theocratic government?
I think you fail to grasp just how bad jihadists, wahabbists, islamo-fascists, and those who support them want to eradicate our way of life.
while i think that it’s wonderful how you see fit to put words into my mouth and principles and thoughts into my head, none of what you said about me is true.
the fact is that you took all of what i wrote, even though i agreed with this post, and twisted it around to suit your own ends.
i don’t see how a discussion or intelligent argument can result from that.
What makes you think I’m talking to you? (lol) Sorry, there are people other than you who have posted anti-war comments here–or tried to flip the argument to Christians being terrorists. That’s interesting, but that’s not what the post is about.
So tell me how I put words in your mouth when you said:
So you know all the reasons why we went to war, and you still oppose it. Is that true? So if it is, you’re opposing it in spite of our having found WMD (more here, more here), in spite of the connection between Saddam Hussein and Terrorism, and the 9/11 attackers having been trained at Salmon Pak.
Plus, if you oppose it, you’re standing on the terrorists’ side instead of supporting our troops. I don’t see how it can be otherwise in a rational person’s mind. Either you’re “with us” or you’re “against us”.
The time for arguing about the reasons to go in is over. We’re there. We’re committed, and for the sake of our fighting forces (and those who have sacrificed life and limb to accomplish this mission), we should see it through to its successful conclusion.
We will be waging the war on terror long after we’ve withdrawn from Iraq, as pointed out above. These people want to replace our way of life with something you can’t even imagine; they want to build a bridge back to the 7th century. By standing against what we’re trying to do in Iraq, you’re helping them do it.
Pingback: euphoricreality.net » Out Of Conviction
i usually read comments in a thread mode, so it made sense to think that the reply after my comment was directed at me.
the fact that you said this “By standing against what we’re trying to do in Iraq, you’re helping them do it” indicates just how opposed to differing viewpoints you are.
people either agree with you or not. if they do but not to the degree you want, you lump them into the same category and as having the same ideals as terrorists and fantatics.
nice.
How is “opposing the war” “supporting our troops”? It’s like two parents fighting over how they’re going to raise their children. The woman criticizes her husband in front of the children, about how he’s disciplining the children. Do you think that encourages the children to mis-behave and undermines his authority?
You bet it does. And how is that any different than the situation in Iraq? Do you think opposing the war emboldens or discourages the terrorists?
It has nothing to do with how I treat people who “disagree” with me. It has to do with what your attitude is accomplishing, bottom line.
Do you think “opposing the war” “supports our troops” in any way, shape or form? How does “opposing the war” do that, exactly? Or do you think our fighting forces are discouraged when they hear people say that?
Captain David Rozelle, on a plane home after he lost his foot from a roadside IED, was sitting next to John Kerry, who said “I don’t support the war”. What do you think that did for his morale at that point, after having just risked his life and sacrificed his foot for the cause?
What I think is hilarious is the twisted rhetoric that you come up with and the fact that you actually BELIEVE what you’re saying.
Marie b sez — “people either agree with you or not. if they do but not to the degree you want, you lump them into the same category and as having the same ideals as terrorists and fantatics.”
You’re not only way out in left field, but you’re really reaching with a stupid summation like that.
I’ve known Cao for a few yrs now; you need to follow along with her to get a better understanding of how she thinks, which more often than not, can be very deep for many people — it’s an admirable quality I, and many others, find stimulating.
ooh Yat says I’m “stimulating” hehehe
And BTW, the jihadis are saying that the anti-war movement is helping them to win on their message boards. You just have to go back to what Bin Laden said before the election about the states that support them versus the states that don’t. On the jihadi message boards they say “it appears that it’s bearing fruit”.
The jihadis themselves are saying the anti-war movement is helping their cause. You have to be a total idiot not to see that, IMO.
“He deserves to be another dead terrorist. I don’t think we can ever have enough dead terrorists.”
Well, if one of two conditions obtained, I could say, “enough.”
1.) Every single terrorist had finally been introduced to Final Judgement: that’d be enough.
2.) Enough terrorists had been introduced to Final Judgement to convince the rest to convert from jackals into sweet lil lambs: that’d… no that’d not be enough. Until those jackals-turnedambs had been sheared (of every piece of information possible), butchered and the resultant excrecence fed to pigs, the pigs slaughtered and cremated and the ashes scattered over Mecca and Medina, their “cnversion” would be worthless…
Stimulating – LOL – I knew you’d catch that!:mrgreen: