Slick Willy unhinged, or is he?
September 28, 2006 by Joe
I really haven’t decided yet, but I’ve narrowed it down to two choices. Bill Clinton is either embarrassed of himself and is lashing out because well the truth hurts or he’s just plain off his rocker. I lean towards the former as unlike some of the Democrats on the hard left (Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich, Hillary) I do not believe that Bill Clinton is insane. As a matter of fact until his Tom Cruise moment on FOX News Sunday, I’ve always felt he was more of a moderate and not a Looney Liberal.
The thing is, while its all nice and fun to poke fun at the former President his actions while being interviewed by Chris Wallace was not a Tom Cruise moment as some on the right have called it. Tom Cruise is nuts, plain and simple, the man is a follower of scientology and he’s from Hollywood of course he’s crazy. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, he’s crazy… crazy like a fox that is.
I myself am of the belief that he is embarrassed and ashamed of himself because of the recent string of attacks against his Presidency for failure to get Osama bin Laden when he had the chance. I believe that he feels this way because deep in his heart, he knows that the criticism he has been receiving is fair, even if it may or may not all be true. The problem is that unlike our current President who doesn’t give a damn about what people think about him (which is the thing I admire the most about him) William Jefferson Clinton is and always was far more concerned with what his legacy will be then with what is right for this country.
Cox & Forkum sum it up nicely with their recent editorial cartoon:
So what Bill Clinton did was what he usually does when he lies (see video below) starts to wave his finger around and gets angry. This time since he is no longer, working out of the Oval office he can allow himself to get a little more angry and animated then he might have otherwise. Bill Clinton’s method of trying to prove that he is right, whether or not he really is, is to get all angry and lash out.
The problem is, as it usually is with the looney left, Bill Clinton’s logic is flawed and he refuses to acknowledge the facts.
When first asked by Chris Wallace why he didn’t do more to try and capture or kill Bin Laden, this was how President Clinton started his response.
OK, let’s talk about it. Now, I will answer all those things on the merits, but first I want to talk about the context in which this arises.
I’m being asked this on the FOX network…
Oh yes that’s right, just as Bill Clinton’s attack dog, James Carville who was let off his leash and sent out as always to defend his masters said this week while on the O’Reilly Factor, “We think that FOX News is a right-leaning anti-Clinton network.” Bill Clinton goes on and on about with his crazy ‘right-wing conspiracy’ talk and says that Chris Wallace was doing FOX’s bidding by doing their “nice little conservative hit job” on him.
That’s all nice but he failed to mention that FOX media mogul Rupert Murdoch hosted a fundraiser this past summer for Bill’s wife Hillary. In addition, he donated $500,000 to Clinton’s Global Initiative. But I digress, Clinton’s assertions of the conservative hit job on him aren’t even the juiciest parts of his meltdown.
He goes on to say that all of President Bush’s “neo-cons” thought that he was “too obsessed with bin Laden” but now claim that he didn’t do enough. That’s where Clinton’s revisionist history begins.
Now my memory may be a little hazy because because the bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan under Clinton happened on my twenty-first birthday and I wasn’t exactly paying much attention to the news that day but Republicans were pretty quick to back their Commander-in-Chief.
Orrin Hatch:
“In the past I was worried that this administration didn’t take this threat seriously enough, and didn’t take Osama bin Laden seriously enough; I’m going to support him, wish him well and back him up.”
Newt Gingrich:
“I think the president did exactly the right thing, by doing this we’re sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists.”
As a matter of fact, when asked about the possibility of the attacks being a diversion to take the heat off of Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Gingrich once again backed our then Commander-in-Chief.
“Anyone who watched the film of the bombings, anyone who saw the coffins come home knows better than to question this timing,” Gingrich said. “It was done as early as possible to send a message to terrorists across the globe that killing Americans has a cost. It has no relationship with any other activity of any kind.”
So either Bill Clinton has a selective memory, was celebrating his 42nd birthday as hard as I was celebrating my 21st, or is just a plain liar. I choose the latter as given Clinton’s knack for telling lies.
Slick Willy goes on to ask Chris Wallace who in the Bush administration he has asked the same things of, and when Wallace says that he has, Clinton’s response was that he didn’t believe him.
Believe it, Bubba. Here’s Rumsfeld on the same show last year. [the bold text is courtesy of myself]
MR. WALLACE: I think a lot of people in Washington are trying to figure out, to understand, Richard Clarke; to make sense of what he has said and of apparent contradictions in his story. Is he telling the truth or is he pushing an agenda? What do you make of his basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?
and
MR. WALLACE: Let me follow up on that, if I can, sir, because you talked to the 9/11 Commission in private before you talked to them in public, and in your public testimony this week, and according to the Commission, the staff, this is what you told them in private. Let’s put it up here, if we can –
“He [Rumsfeld] did not recall any particular counterterrorism issue that engaged his attention before 9/11 other than the development of the Predator unmanned aircraft system for possible use against bin Laden. He said the DOD,” the Department of Defense, “before 9/11 was not organized or trained adequately to deal with asymmetric threats.”
Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.
and
MR. WALLACE: But looking back, sir, and I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Which is the only way to do it, in my view. I think you simply have to go out –
MR. WALLACE: — pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?
So if Chris Wallace’s interview with former President Bill Clinton was a “right-wing hit job” what does that make his interview with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a “left-wing hit job”? No it’s fair and balanced reporting, something the liberal media has yet to get.
Sorry Bill, but your lies just aren’t cutting it.
That’s all I really have to say, I’ll leave you with this funny video courtesy of Family Guy.
Boycott Citgo
September 22, 2006 by Joe
Michelle Malkin mentions a number of her readers are asking for info on boycotting Citgo.
I’m boycotting them myself. I suggest everyone do the same. Click the picture for more info.
Islam is not for me
September 21, 2006 by Joe
Hat Tip to This That And Frog Hair2
I think this song sums it up nice.
Parallels abound
September 21, 2006 by Joe
I want to start by making a statement and I hope that I make this statement as clear as possible. I was planning on posting the video here, but it is just too disgusting to pollute my blog with. If you are so inclined to listen to the filth that came out of the mouth of Hugo Chavez you can do so at Hot Air, who have the video up.
If you agree with the speech that Hugo Chavez gave on Wednesday September 20th while addressing the United Nations General Assembly — you are not only a worthless idiot, but you are a scumbag that is so pathetically devoid of moral clarity that only pedophiles and rapists are worse then you. If you are, an American citizen and you agree with Hugo Chavez you are a traitor to your country, plain and simple.
We are in troubling times when the United Nations not only allows a complete and total unhinged lunatic like Hugo Chavez a podium on the world’s stage — but also applauds him when he is finished spewing his vile. They applaud these men for their speeches, yet say nothing when they deny the citizens of their countries free speech.
To allow men like Chavez and Ahmadinejad, the night before, to speak in New York City and then have Chavez make a remark about the smell of sulfur — while the stench of jet fuel and death still linger at Ground Zero is a slap in the face to all those who lost their lives on 9/11.
The last few days have done nothing but prove that the United Nations is a worthless organization that does far more harm to the security and safety of not just the United States, but also the entire world; then any amount of good it may have done.
We are sitting by and doing nothing as History is starting to repeat itself. Ahmadinejad is today’s Hitler and Chavez is the new Mussolini while Kim Jong Ill is the new Emperor Hirohito.
We are sitting by, as Hugo Chavez is echoes the talking points of the hard left wing of the Democratic Party, while the rest of the country is more concerned about who is going to win the next Dancing with the Stars or if Brad and Angelina are going to marry.
The parallels between the Axis of World War II and the new Axis of World War III are strikingly apparent. The Axis of yesteryear composed of the tyrannies of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan are today replaced by Iran, Venezuela and North Korea.
Just as Germany blatantly violated the ineffective Treaty of Versailles Iran and North Korea both are pursuing the development of nuclear weapons in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Just like the League of Nations before it, today the United Nations has done nothing to forcibly challenge Iran and North Korea to stop their nuclear ambitions.
Just like yesteryear the strategy has been to try to appease the violators instead of stop them. The result of this useless pursuit will end up the same way today as it did in the 1930’s. Today’s Axis will participate in negotiations all the while laughing behind our backs as they know that all it is doing is buying them time until they can realize their Nuclear ambitions to the point that the world has to choose between total war with them or total surrender to their demands.
Just as Mussolini dreamed of recreating the Roman Empire across the Mediterranean with himself as Emperor — Hugo Chavez dreams of a United Bolivarian Republic of South America with he and Fidel Castro at the helm. While a Nuclear Iran in control of the Middle East is not exactly in the best interest of the world, just as a Nazi Germany in control of most of Europe was not in the best interest then. Chavez and Ahmadinejad are being drawn together just like Mussolini and Hitler were driven together by their respective diplomatic isolation resulting from their aggressions.
Chavez has already declared his nation’s oil exports as a geopolitical weapon to be used against the United States and seeing the United States’ economy weaken with the loss of Gulf oil, and American military forces stretched across the globe, Chavez could seize the opportunity to cut off the export of Venezuelan oil to the United States, and thoroughly devastate the American economy if there was a large scale military conflict in the Middle East.
It is of the utmost importance that the world takes action now against Iran before their nuclear ambitions are realized. We need to hit Iran now before they have the bomb built and achieve their first stated goal of annihilating Israel.
Charles Krauthammer, in a recent editorial, laid out where the world finds itself right now. We are not at a good place and if we do not make the right decisions, the scenario he describes in the piece will place us in some very uncomfortable times, but the prospect of Iran with nuclear weapons will place us all at a far worse fate.
Read the whole article for the costs of using the military option on Iran now, below is a quote from the article about what lies ahead if we don’t stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions — a fate which I believe would be far worse and will happen if we continue on the failed path of appeasement and failed negotiations.
In the region, Persian Iran will immediately become the hegemonic power in the Arab Middle East. Today it is deterred from aggression against its neighbors by the threat of conventional retaliation. Against a nuclear Iran, such deterrence becomes far less credible. As its weak, non-nuclear Persian Gulf neighbors accommodate to it, jihadist Iran will gain control of the most strategic region on the globe.
Then there is the larger danger of permitting nuclear weapons to be acquired by religious fanatics seized with an eschatological belief in the imminent apocalypse and in their own divine duty to hasten the End of Days. The mullahs are infinitely more likely to use these weapons than anyone in the history of the nuclear age.
Every city in the civilized world will live under the specter of instant annihilation delivered either by missile or by terrorist. This from a country that has an official Death to America Day and has declared since Ayatollah Khomeini’s ascension that Israel must be wiped off the map.
Against millenarian fanaticism glorying in a cult of death, deterrence is a mere wish. Is the West prepared to wager its cities with their millions of inhabitants on that feeble gamble?
These are the questions. These are the calculations. The decision is no more than a year away.
Jerusalem. There is no such city! / And AhMad In a Head
September 20, 2006 by Joe
I’m sure the Hitler of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s response to this story was something along the lines of “Praise be to allah! Now we only need a smaller nuclear bomb for the rest of the Zionist state.”
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Something always gets lost in translation, but usually not an entire city.
“Jerusalem. There is no such city!” the Jerusalem municipality said in the English-language version of a sightseeing brochure it had published originally in Hebrew.
The correct translation: “Jerusalem. There is no city like it!”
Carrying a photograph of the brochure, Israel’s Maariv newspaper said Wednesday tens of thousands of flyers had been distributed before city hall realized its mistake.
Speaking of the Hitler of Iran, somebody in the government finally came out and said it. In an article in my local fish wrap, The Plain Dealer, George Voinovich is quoted comparing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolph Hitler.
Hours before Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations in New York on Tuesday; Ohio’s junior senator compared him to Nazi leader Adolph Hitler and said, “I call him ‘Ahmad-in-a-head.’ ”
Speaking to colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Voinovich continued, “I think he’s a Hitler-type of person. He has made it clear that he wants to destroy Israel. He’s made it clear he doesn’t believe in the Holocaust.
“He’s a - he’s a - well, we all know what he is.”
The Republican senator went on to say that Iran is meddling in Iraq and Lebanon and wants to meddle in Israel. There seems to be, Voinovich said, “a very deliberate, premeditated effort on their part to expand their influence in that area, and this nuclear issue is just part of it.”
Personally, I think Senator Voinovich was far too mild in his remarks about the Hitler of Iran. The man is a complete lunatic and he and his regime must be taken out of power, by any means necessary.
If his regime is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, it will be the worst possible nightmare in the history of the world. The world needs to wake up to what this lunatic is up to before it is too late.
The socialist elites, in Europe as well as the left in this country think that by being nice to Iran and holding talks with them that things will turn out for the best. Meanwhile, in Iran they are laughing at us for being nice and talking, because all it is doing is showing our weakness while buying them time to develop the bomb.
The entire world is being held hostage by this nut bags in power in Iran, but everyone just has not woken up yet to realize it. In a hostage situation there is no negotiation, just like in this situation no amount of negotiation is going to get us out of it.
The truth about Islam
September 18, 2006 by Joe
Hat Tip to Hip Hop Republican. Everyone should check out this blog not only for the great content, but at least to see the awesome Marvin Gaye video on the bottom of their site.
This is sort of old news, seeing that the video is a few months old, but in light of the recent Muslim outrage over the words of the Pope, I felt I needed to post it here.
Here is a profile of the woman in the video, Dr. Wafa Sultan, posted April 30th in Time.
As a writer-activist who has fought for the rights of Muslim women, I thought I knew my fellow bad girls of Islam. But Wafa Sultan, 47, has given new meaning to the word bad. A psychiatrist in Syria before transplanting to Southern California in 1989 with her family, she gave an interview with al-Jazeera a couple of months ago that made her a household name in the Islamic world. “The clash we are witnessing around the world is … a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another that belongs to the 21st century,” she said. “It is a clash between freedom and oppression.”
The interview raced across the Internet and landed Sultan in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times and on CNN. I connected with her anger and pain. She questioned Islam in 1979, when, she says, she witnessed the murder of a professor by men with alleged ties to the ultraconservative Muslim Brotherhood political group. I challenged Islamic traditions after my friend and former colleague Daniel Pearl was murdered in 2002. Both killings were punctuated with “Allah is great.” We have differences: Sultan blames Islam; I blame Muslims. But we both believe the Muslim world is in the Dark Ages.
Sultan’s influence flows from her willingness to express openly critical views on Islamic extremism that are widely shared but rarely aired by other Muslims. She hopes to publish a book and start a foundation to take the politics out of Islam and “change the mentality of Muslim people.” She plans to continue speaking out in Arabic to try to free Muslims from “brainwashing.” “I even don’t believe in Islam,” she says, “but I am a Muslim.” By so sharply voicing her beliefs, Sultan crystallizes the mission for the rest of us who want to take the slam out of Islam.
She is a very brave woman, who speaks the truth.
Looney liberal frees cold blooded murderer — because of buttons.
September 18, 2006 by Joe
If there already wasn’t enough to prove that Jimmy Carter was by far the worst President ever (here, here, here and here). Yet another appointee of Mr. Carter’s has made a disgustingly wrong ruling that hopefully will be fixed when the case is heard by the Supreme court next month.
Liberal activist, I mean 9th circuit court judge Stephen Reinhardt of Los Angeles, a Jimmy Carter appointee whose wife happens to be the executive director of the Southern California American Civil Liberties Union, alongside Marsha S. Berzon of San Francisco reversed a decision that sent a cold blooded murderer to jail.
Here is the snippet of the article, I hate linking to liberal fish wraps, but it’s the only place online to find the story. I suggest reading the whole thing.
WASHINGTON — For Jim Studer, wearing a button with a photo of his brother, Tom, was a simple way of bearing witness for him at the trial of Tom’s accused killer, Mathew Musladin.
“He was my big brother, and he was very protective of me when I was a kid,” Studer said.
Little did he think the buttons he and his parents wore to the trial in San Jose would nearly free the man convicted of Tom’s murder — or put the killer’s case before the Supreme Court. But he had not considered that Musladin would someday have a chance to bring his case before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
For years, the Supreme Court has cast a critical eye on the liberal-leaning 9th Circuit, particularly in cases involving crime and the death penalty. The justices will consider two of those cases soon after they return next month.
On the first day of Musladin’s trial more than a decade ago, Studer and his parents, who had traveled from Missouri, sat in the front row of the courtroom, directly behind the prosecutor. Each wore a button with a photo of Tom.
Like the jury, they heard the facts of the case: On May 13, 1994, Musladin arrived early at the home of his estranged wife, Pamela, to pick up their 3-year-old son for a weekend visit. The two exchanged angry words, and Musladin threw her to the driveway.
When she called for help, her fiance, Tom Studer, and her brother, Michael Albaugh, came running. Musladin had a .45caliber pistol in his car and began shooting. Studer was hit in the back and crawled under a truck in the garage to escape. Musladin followed him and shot again, hitting him in the head and killing him.
Musladin also followed Albaugh into the house, but he hid in a bathroom. Pamela escaped over the fence to another house. Musladin was captured after a high-speed chase on U.S. 101.
When his case came to trial, Musladin claimed self-defense, saying that Pamela and her fiance were drug users and that he had feared for his life. The jury convicted him of first-degree murder and attempted murder, and he was sentenced to 32 years to life in prison.
There matters stood until the 9th Circuit heard his appeal last year. The 26-member court hears cases — usually in three-judge panels — from California and eight other Western states. It has some decidedly liberal judges, and Musladin’s case came before two of them: Stephen Reinhardt of Los Angeles and Marsha S. Berzon of San Francisco.
In a 2-1 decision, the judges reversed Musladin’s conviction, saying that the buttons worn by Studer’s family deprived Musladin of a fair trial.
According to Reinhardt, the photo buttons — described by the prosecutor as 2 inches in diameter and by Musladin’s lawyer as 3 to 4 inches — conveyed a “specific message.”
“The buttons essentially ‘argue’ that Studer was the innocent party and that the defendant was necessarily guilty,” Reinhardt said.
He continued: “A reasonable jurist would be compelled to conclude that the buttons worn by Studer’s family members conveyed the message that the defendant was guilty.”
That was not the view of the trial judge or the California state courts.
When a defense lawyer objected at the start of the trial and described the buttons as “inappropriate,” the judge disagreed: “There is no legend on the buttons,” he said. “I see no possible prejudice to the defendant.”
It was noted that the prosecutor could have held up a photo of Studer for the jury to see. Had he survived the shooting, the victim could have sat in the courtroom himself.
The state appeals court also saw no harm.
“The simple photograph of Tom Studer was unlikely to have been taken as a sign of anything other than the normal grief occasioned by the loss of a family member,” its judges wrote in upholding Musladin’s conviction.
It is decisions like this one, that reinforce that Conservatives everywhere need to vote even when we are fed up with some of the actions of our elected Republicans, to ensure that Looney Liberal Democrats who appointed complete wastes such as Stephen Reinhardt do not get elected.
Critical Mass
September 18, 2006 by Joe
I’ve already posted twice on the matter of the Muslim rioting in the wake of comments made by Pope Benedict XVI, but the reaction of the Muslim world to these words is just so disgusting that I feel the need to write about it once more. Cox & Forkum has a great editorial cartoon today that perfectly depicts the utter stupidity of Muslims protesting against the Pope’s words.
Karen Armstrong, a British writer in religion, wrote a commentary for The Guardian on Monday, September 18, where she called the pope’s remarks dangerous and stated that his words would reinforce the West’s Islamophobia. Armstrong wrote that the roots of Western Islamophobia dated back to the Crusades. She stated that “Jesus had told his followers to love their enemies, not to exterminate them,”
Armstrong goes on to explain the reason, she believes, why Christians perceive Muslims as violent: “It was when the Christians of Europe were fighting brutal holy wars against Muslims in the Middle East that Islam first became known in the west as the religion of the sword.” The famous author also quipped, “How can the Pope, as leader of a foundation that is committer of brutal crusades in the past, condemn Islamic Jihad?”
What Armstrong fails to point out is that the current Pope’s predecessor John Paul II, made a full apology for past sins of the Roman Catholic Church — including the Crusades. Events that happened hundreds of years ago. Where are the apologies for events that happened in the name of Islam merely 5 years ago.
Armstrong is right Jesus had told his followers to love their enemies. Nobody is trying to “exterminate” Muslims, however sensible reasonable voices in the Western world are calling for Muslims to denounce terrorism and those who result to violence in defense of their religion. The Catholic Churches crusades against the Muslim world happened hundreds of years ago, the radical Islamofasict crusade against Western culture is taking place today — I think it is more then fair of the Pope to criticize Islamic Jihad.
I myself have been called out for trying to find voices in the moderate Muslim world to denounce the violence that has occurred by extremists following the Pope’s remarks. I have been told that I shouldn’t consider the “few bad apples” as an indication of the whole bunch and have also been told that moderate Muslims have better things to do then get their panties all up in a bunch whenever an extremist turns to violence in defense of their religion. I say hogwash.
I think that the words of Edmund Burke summarize this situation up greatly in that “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” That is exactly what the so-called moderate Muslims throughout the world are doing in their refusal to acknowledge the disgusting acts of the radical Islamofascists.
When terrorists do evil acts in the name of “Allah” a few voices in the Muslim community will make a few remarks about how extremism is bad. However, when someone calls out their religion as being violent, there are protests all over the Muslim world that end up in the burning of Churches and the killing of Nuns, doing absolutely nothing but re-enforcing the notion of their religion as being violent. All the while the so-called moderates do nothing.
It may be true that the disgusting and violent acts perpetrated in the name of Mohammed as a result of the Pope’s words are in fact being perpetrated by a small minority of the Muslim population. But I believe it is a great majority of Muslims who insult their religion far worse then the Pope could have — by their inaction in speaking out against the violent extremists. Unless of course they agree with them, lets hope that is not the case.
::For more visit
Hot Air
Jihad Watch
and for some comedy
Born Again Redneck
More fallout from the Pope’s comments
September 17, 2006 by Joe
Well it looks like they are smarter in Iran then we really thought. Iranian newspapers have figured out our plan, the Pope’s comments about Islam last week were dictated to him by America and our Zionist puppet masters. I guess they have figured out that the secret organization of European Jews is so powerful that not only have they taken over control of the United States, but they wield all the power in the Vatican too.
This sounds all too crazy to make up, but unfortunately according to the daily Jomhuri Islami:
“The reality is that if we do not consider Pope Benedict XVI to be ignorant of Islam, then his remarks against Islam are a dictat that the Zionists and the Americans have written (for him) and have submitted to him.”
“The American and the Zionist aim is to undermine the glorious triumph of Islam’s children of Lebanese Hezbollah, which annulled the undefeatable legend of the Israeli army and foiled the Satanic and colonialist American plot,”
With news like this doesn’t it make you feel really safe knowing that Kofi Anan and the Useless Nations are on the case trying to “prevent” Iran from acquiring Nukes.
In Somalia a hardline cleric has called for Muslims to “hunt down” and kill Pope Benedict XVI for his controversial comments about Islam. Because after all there is no better way then proving the peaceful nature of your faith then by killing someone who you believe insulted it.
Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin urged Muslims to find the pontiff and punish him for insulting the Prophet Mohammed and Allah in a speech that he said was as offensive as author Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses.
“We urge you Muslims wherever you are to hunt down the Pope for his barbaric statements as you have pursued Salman Rushdie, the enemy of Allah who offended our religion,” he said in Friday evening prayers.
“Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim,” Malin, a prominent cleric in the Somali capital, told worshippers at a mosque in southern Mogadishu.
“We call on all Islamic Communities across the world to take revenge on the baseless critic called the pope,” he said.
I don’t think that it is a coincidence that coming right off the heels of those disgusting remarks by Sheikh Abubukar that an Italian nun was brutally murdered.
Sister Leonella, 65, was shot in the back four times by pistol-wielding attackers as she left the Austrian-run S.O.S. hospital at lunch time after finishing nursing school for trainee medics. Her bodyguard was also slain.
There was no claim of responsibility for the attack, which came just hours after a leading Somali cleric condemned the pope’s remarks last week on Islam and violence.
The head of security for the Islamic militia that controls much of southern Somalia, Yusuf Mohamed Siad, said one man had been arrested and the second was being hunted. He said the killing might have stemmed from the uproar over the pope but stressed he didn’t know for sure.
He didn’t “know for sure,” lets see here idiotic Muslim cleric from Somalia says “We call on all Islamic Communities across the world to take revenge on the baseless critic called the pope,” and then a nun in Somalia gets murdered. That is no coincidence.
Also the pope has “apologized” for his comments. Well thankfully not exactly, he expressed remorse that a bunch of worthless idiots took his remarks as an occasion to riot.
“I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims,”
I still don’t think I’m going to church on Sundays, especially since football season just started, but I gotta say… I really, really like this pope.
Finally, I really wish that we had a politician in the US who was like Australia’s Andrew Robb, who yesterday told an audience of 100 imams:
“We live in a world of terrorism where evil acts are being regularly perpetrated in the name of your faith,” Mr Robb said at the Sydney conference.
“And because it is your faith that is being invoked as justification for these evil acts, it is your problem.
“You can’t wish it away, or ignore it, just because it has been caused by others.”
“Instead, speak up and condemn terrorism, defend your role in the way of life that we all share here in Australia.”
Just replace the word ‘Australia’ with ‘America’ or even better ‘the Western World’ and you have a message that Muslims all over should take to heart.
Note to Muslims: you refuse to denounce terrorists — you refuse to denounce idiots who riot and throw Molotov cocktails at Catholic Churches or murder nuns because of the pope’s comments — you refuse to denounce and you wonder why the Western world has issues with you?
Muslims the world over prove they are peaceful — by violent protests
September 15, 2006 by Joe
So it looks like Muslims all over the world are a little upset at a few comments made by the Pope recently.
ISTANBUL, Turkey - Pakistan’s legislature unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon’s top Shiite cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict’s remarks on Islam and jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that many fear could burst into violent protests like those that followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.
By citing an obscure Medieval text that characterizes some of the teachings of Islam’s founder as “evil and inhuman,” Benedict inflamed Muslim passions and aggravated fears of a new outbreak of anti-Western protests.
I could be mistaken, but I don’t particularly remember the pope making any comments that seemed to echo the sentiments of one Adolph Hitler. I love it how people the world over just jump on the comparing a current public figure to Hitler train. The libs love to compare Bush to Hitler, and now the leading party in Turkey is calling the Pope Hitler. I don’t remember the pope calling for an eradication of an entire group of people or of a sovereign state, but there is a certain President of an Islamic country that has done so.
In an effort to prove that the Pope is wrong and that Muslims are in fact peaceful, they have decided to take to the streets and show the world just how peaceful of a religion they are.
Muslim students burn an effigy of Pope Benedict XVI at a protest rally in Allahabad, India, Friday, Sept. 15, 2006. A growing chorus of Muslim leaders has called on the Pope to apologize for the alleged derogatory comments made by him about Islam. (AP Photo/Rajesh Kumar Singh)
Pakistani Muslims carry placards and shout slogans against remarks by Pope Benedict XVI, during a protest in Islamabad. A wave of protest from Muslims across the globe descended on the Vatican as the Islamic world denounced comments by Pope Benedict XVI linking Islam with violence.(AFP)
A Palestinian from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade attends a rally in Gaza to protest against remarks regarding Islam made by Pope Benedict XVI September 15, 2006. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem
If those aren’t shining examples as to the peaceful nature of Islam, I don’t know what are. I mean look at how peacefully those protesters in the first picture are putting out the fire of burnt effigy of the Pope by stomping on it. And that guy in the last picture holding up the assault weapon, I mean now tell me that’s not a peaceful looking Palestinian ninja.
Seriously, though, I think my patience is wearing thin. I have been trying and trying to hold out hope that we are at war with radicalized Islamofascicts and that the entire religion is not nuts, but things like this are making it very hard to do. Maybe when Muslims the world over are as quick to denounce terrorists acts and to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbolla — as they are in denouncing the Pope, maybe then I can truly believe that Islam is a peaceful religion.
Here’s a related post from me: Calling out the “Religion of Peace”For more on this story visit:
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Comments
-
Operation: United Forces HC
-
Country First: McCain/Palin '08
-
Torches & Pitchforks
-
Info and Stuff...
-
My Heroes
-
Best Conservative Blogs
-
Site Meter
