In the Gaza Strip a Palestinian grandmother blew herself up in a suicide attack claimed by Hamas. The woman was a mother of nine and a grandmother of 41. At the age of 57 (another report claimed that she was 64) she is on record as the oldest suicide bomber.
I'm curious what good the 72 female virgins in heaven will be for her.
According to one news report I read, she is one of thousands of veiled volunteers hitting the streets as the Islamic militant group Hamas increasingly mobilizes its network of female "activists".
That's right, the mainstream media calls her an activist. I suppose they are called such because women have started to demand a bigger role in Hamas, which leads the Palestinian government. I suppose this would be the only way a woman can gain any rights in this ideology - how proud they must be to have the right to blow their guts apart while taking out infidels in the process.
In the meantime, Cindy Sheehan is in the news again. She paid a visit to Chavez in Venezuela calling George W. Bush a terrorist responsible for killing tens of thousands of innocent people. Sheehan also called for the impeachment of Bush for war crimes.
How about we call for the arrest of Cindy Sheehan for treason!
And speaking of treasonous undermining, have you heard about Jimmy Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid"?
The book's bias against Israel is wrong. Even a liberal reporter, Alan Dershowitz, had a problem with the book and its many errors and omissions that undermines American and Israel operations, as well as failing to recognize the Islam ideology for what it is. Read the review HERE.
Carter's undermining of American efforts in the Middle East, and his repeated liberal attacks against the government, is treasonous.
Between him and Cindy Sheehan, and Pelosi, and Kennedy, and Murtha, and Kerry, and . . .
Carter was a complete and utter failure as a president...what right does he have to comment at all on anything to do in the Middle East. He brougth this nation more humiliation in Arab/American affairs than the Clinton Cigar saga...
ReplyDeleteGood post!
Carter is very biter man due to his failures. He is responsible for not crushing Iran when the hostages were taken!!
ReplyDeleteFor not Iran? I seem to remember that Reagan didn't crush Iran either. I seem to remember something about Iran/Contra. I seem to remember something about an October Surprise. I seem to remember something about actual history rather than disinformation, and revisionism.
ReplyDeleteAs for Carter being "bitter" I hardly think so. Please don't presume to speak for someone else's emotions, especially someone you've never met.
Sorry - "For not 'crushing" Iran."
ReplyDeleteBTW - I guess you don't know any Persians, cuz if you did, you wouldn't wish to crush their homeland.
We do not need to be "crushing" anybody. However, militants that threaten our people do need to be dealt with. Carter failed to make sure our hostages were freed, but knowing Reagan would not mess around the Iranians released the hostages moments before Reagans inaugeration. As for Iran-Contra, the deal was saving countless lives in El Salvador and Nicaragua while assisting Iran that was an enemy of ours, but at the time Iraq was a greater enemy, and we needed Iran to remain on its feet as a buffer against Iraq. Ever heard the old saying, an enemy of your enemy is your temporary friend? But the liberals got a hold of it, did what they usually do and blew it into something else, just looking for something - etc. Tell you what, mudkitty, to get a good picture of the MSM and liberal attitude, go to my www.politicalpistachiovideos.blogspot.com site and check out the link on the post about if Iwo Jima was to happen today - and tell me if it isn't true.
ReplyDeleteHey, sefton, don't be anonymous, and you've sent me this before - don't be fishing for hits. comment about the article. Come on, man, I know you better than that.
ReplyDeleteDG. It isn't true.
ReplyDeleteWhere do you want me to start?
What isn't true? I gave you links. Research, mudkitty, then come back with well thought out specifics, and then we'll talk.
ReplyDeleteYou characterization of it and your analogies are not true.
ReplyDelete