Why is it odd when the left communist line is to disarm, lie down and allow us to be overrun because we are the “oppressor nation”

The minute you actually understand the rules of oppression and class, you then will understand why this is so. the oppressor can never be anything else. the oppressor, even if they want to be something else, and even if they are nice and help, they are only insuring there own hegemony as oppressors. I feel like a bad oppressor every time I help a mother with carriage go up the stairs in the subways that are immune to the laws that require access for everyone else.

The communists, are utopians and so they can NEVER be oppressors. This is why the US is to blame for Vietnam, but what happened after means nothing.

To lose wars to such pittance struggles is to make us hate ourselves more. to doubt ourselves. to feel bad and perhaps even act out more to change that course.

Doesn’t matter crisis and progressivism goes together like gulags and leftism.

Without understanding the small dialogue of rules as to oppressor and oppressed relationships, none of this will make cogent sense. the second you realize that there is a simple rule in play, suddenly you can (like flocking) simulate and understand the behavior.

Winston Churchill delivered a message during one of England’s darkest hours, just after Dunkirk. He was addressing Parliament and shoring up the will of his people and their leaders, but he was delivering a message to the enemy, as well

Oh that was true, but to let you know another reason for the first.

Britons are losing their grip on reality, according to a poll out Monday which showed that nearly a quarter think Winston Churchill was a myth while the majority reckon Sherlock Holmes was real.
The survey found that 47 percent thought the 12th century English king Richard the Lionheart was a myth. And 23 percent thought World War II prime minister Churchill was made up. The same percentage thought Crimean War nurse Florence Nightingale did not actually exist. Three percent thought Charles Dickens, one of Britain’s most famous writers, is a work of fiction himself. Indian political leader Mahatma Gandhi and Battle of Waterloo victor the Duke of Wellington also appeared in the top 10 of people thought to be myths.
Meanwhile, 58 percent thought Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s fictional detective Holmes actually existed; 33 percent thought the same of W. E. Johns’ fictional pilot and adventurer Biggles.

The words you quoted, are considered a myth. Propaganda… just as the gulags are unknown and also considered such by those who have heard ‘something’.

Since Churchill is a myth, all that he said, contributed, and did, was contrived as cartoon propaganda for the war effort.

Note that they said a QUARTER of Brits. (Americans are much the same)

You were in with them but already had the seeds of doubt…

Otherwise, I think you are on to something. Liberals reject history. I’ve heard more than one ask why we even teach it…. which rises to contempt of it IMO… One of my own liberal HS history teachers started the semester trying to explain history away… saying how can we learn from it when it’s a point of view (re: if we study the wrong or take the wrong lessons, how do you learn… and then how do you know what the right lesson is)…

It’s not a blip… from day one, progressivism has had contempt for the past and progressives think they know so much better that they can create a better society by sweeping it away with their new ideas.

In the 60s, this meme was put forward via the ‘imagine’ attitude. Imagine a world without war, want, greed, et cetera… as if, imagining it would make the real world go away or change… and, like the utopians from the 20s on (re: if they knew their history) they reacted just like the bad people they claimed to reject by scapegoating out groups to account for their failures to change the world…

Today we get the same stuff with national healthcare… I want it to be free… so it should be (and it will just work because I want it so)…

That is both their strength and their weakness. I think that the chief strategic thought amongst the leadership must always be “How far can we push them so that they do not lose patience?”

So far, their calibration since the 11th has been finely wrought. Should they misjudge, the results can be catastrophic for them. Since they know this, we can be fairly certain they will not misjudge.

The other advantage touched on, and it may well be a fatal advantage, is that the enemy has full control of its myths, while we are in the midst — or even towards the end — of a long period of dismantling our core myths.

To paraphrase, “A people without myths is not redeemed by time.”

I think it’s because the threat is more subtle that people can more easily put it out of their mind, deny it, downplay it, or pretend it doesn’t exist. Of course, the media doesn’t help here–not just talking about the print media, either; Hollywood has a real “He Who Must Not Be Named” problem with Islamism. It’s like they can’t even bear to think about it–not understanding that acknowledging the issue is the first step to finally beginning to deal with it. I often wonder what historians fifty or sixty years from now will make of the print and film attitudes of this time. I suspect it won’t be pretty.

Your invocation of history is another well-taken point. There are many many people out there, not just on the left either, who don’t really understand or know much about history–they’ve learned the politically correct “West/U.S. bad, indigenous country good” soundbites–not even the full version but just soundbites–and that’s about it. They have no context to put this struggle into, no way of comparing it with conflicts past, no real understanding of the nature of warfare, of counterinsurgency, of totalitarianism and what it does to the mind, of much of anything in fact. I’m not claiming to be an expert on any of these things–far from it. But at least I know what I don’t know and I’ve been trying to educate myself (since I didn’t get *any* of this stuff in college). I just wish more people would do the same.

Instead of “fighting” people sitting in their offices in NY, unaware that they are at war, they have to fight our military, armed and ready for a fight…and it’s over there. Is this a great war or what? Compared to much worse alternatives.

“In fact, I remember right after 9/11, my dad telling me, “Well, we beat Communism and we can beat this too.””

It’s why the left has been pushing the meme that the cold war was fake… re: the Soviets were the paper tiger dreamed up by the neocons… and their parents… ergo, this conflict is a ‘lie’ too.

then read about each generation of warfare… 2g, 3g (WWII), 4G, and now 5G..

Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW): An emergent theory of warfare premised upon manipulation of multiple economic, political, social and military forces in multiple domains to effect positional changes in systems and achieve a consilience of effects to leverage a specific goal or set of circumstances. (Arherring 1/12/07)

if you read the new treatise on it by chinas generals, its real interesting. such warfare is differnt in the ways that your hinting at…

hwoever, islamics is a perfect bed to research and test such tactics.

other things would connect the lead in toys, and other issues to a form of warfare where you can hurt your enemy but deny him recompense or response as it seems to be an economic accident.

if you want to understand wahts going on now, the 4g/5g warfare covers it.

in this idea groups like hammass can wage warfare of attrition from inside the state.

it serves two purposes… the enemies defeat if its not countered… the enemies turning to the darkside of ‘actions’ and ‘morals’ if they do try to counter it.

If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China’s territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” he said, making it clear he was speaking in a personal capacity. “We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian.

At the same time, with the progressive breaking
down of the distinction between military technology and civilian technology, and between the
professional soldier and the non-professional warrior, the battlespace will overlap more and more
with the non-battlespace, serving also to make the line between these two entities less and less
clear. Fields that were formerly isolated from each other are being connected. Mankind is
endowing virtually every space with battlefield significance. All that is needed is the ability to
launch an attack in a certain place, using certain means, in order to achieve a certain goal. Thus,
the battlefield is omnipresent. Just think, if it’s even possible to start a war in a computer room or
a stock exchange that will send an enemy country to its doom, then is there non-battlespace
anywhere?

so economic warfare, computer warfare, clandestine poisionings of enemies under pretenses of mistakes, etc.

its all war, all the time, with no prefferred place and no one understanding that thats what it is.

If that young lad setting out with his orders should ask today: “Where is the battlefield?” The
answer would be: “Everywhere.”

in this game.. move.on are soldiers in the mind fronts… islamics are on teh religious fronts.. feminsits are on the gender front… national socialists are on the race front (black this time not german), nazies are on the green front…

in case no one noticed… sedetion is legal now, and these are the warriors…

all of them start out as terrorists… including the feminists!!! well teh radical communist ones… rote zora…

they take the old soviet cold war thing where fronts are supposed to fund themselves after starting, and they do so with relish.

this means that a team that arrives can set to work creating or tapping the money supply.

open borders… the socialist revolutionary forces joining the US army to get urban warfar training.. or anyone care to read how the propaganda has turned the good people off so much that we are flooding the military with m13, ms13, farc, white supremicists, etc.

at some point.. the type of rhetoric as with wright will get useful idiots to do nutty things.

All of the cards have now been shown. We already know that war will not again be displayed in
its original form.

and the list goes on.

In what way, then, are we different from our supposed enemies? Is this not a case of saying our faith demands that those who do not follow it must be enemy/infidels and therefore we must slay them or they shall slay us?

Here is a timely article from The American Interest about the threat of terrorism. A good quote from it is, ” … the total number of people killed worldwide by genuine al-Qaeda types and assorted wannabes outside of war zones since 9/11 averages about 300 per year. That is certainly 300 a year too many, but that number is smaller than the yearly number of bathtub drownings in the United States. Moreover, unless the terrorists are able somehow massively to increase their capacities, the likelihood that a person living outside a war zone will perish at the hands of an international terrorist over an eighty-year period is about one in 80,000. By comparison, an American’s chance of dying in an auto accident over the same time interval is one in eighty.”

I say, it is time for a jihad against bad drivers … and their evil masters, the makers of suburban assault vehicles.

Who Will Win the Next War? [Shei neng ying xia yi chang zhanzheng] [published by China Youth Press [Zhongguo Qingnian Chubanshe], March 1999

How Far is War From Us? [Zhangzheng Li Women you duoyuan] published by PLA Publishing House, July 1999 (580 pages)

Who is the Next Target?, [Xia yige mubiao shi shei?] published by China Youth Press (404 pages)

there is quite a bit more stuff..

the main point is that while everyone is arguing on the front lawn over and over in circles, the others are in the back room cooking up something awful.

this is the numbers fallacy…

you win because you win, not because of some numbers, or how many kills (boy did that one cause trouble in vientam), or anything else.

winning is the only measure of success in war

look at the issue this way.

they were able to cause more damage with those few people than many other actions!!

our laws hav changes, communstst are bidding to be allowed to teach communism in schools in california, we are so parnoid we are giving tons of money to places that yuo cant find on the map.

its not how many…

in the godfather, all they did was kill one horse…

wars are psychological, not physical..

the physical is used to drive psychology…

the thought that bombing alone can win a war is a problem of misunderstanding psychology..

in case you didnt realize it, but bin laden and his crew do things in multiples so that the population knows it is not an accident.

one gas truck goes off… its buried..

one lone gunman yelling allah akbar in a mall in the midwest… he is an unconnected lone wakko

one plane into the side of a building… must be an accident… weeks would go by before we ‘got it’..

but a few?

once is an accident
twice is a coincidence
three times is on purpose.

I knew bupkus about Islam on 9/11. Like the commenters here I undertook to learn as much as I could, and I’m still learning. The whole picture of Islam is much more than just the tenents of Islam. Tribalism, shame-based culture, a tradition of revenge, and a fundamentalst religious worldview all contribute to the mix.

When libs tell me the threat is isolated in Afghanistan and Waziristan, I always refer them to the Religion of Peace site: http://thereligionofpeace.com/ That site keeps a worldwide running total of the terrorist attacks and associated deaths. It provides a stark picture of the conflict writ large.

This is a worldwide, low intensity, sometimes overt, sometimes covert conflict. Which is why it is so difficult for many people to understand what is actually going on and why. They see on going armed conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq as chaotic and never ending. The most common questions are: Why are we there? What would victory look like? Why would it be bad to just declare victory and leave? Because they do not know history and do not understand the enemy, it makes no sense to them.

As pointed out, the MSM, for the most part, has done little to help the masses understand. The majority just want it over so things can be like they were in the 90s; peaceful and prosperous. And most want desperately to believe that somehow, someway we can get the Islamists to accept the idea of coexistence. (Barack Obama’s plan.)

Short of the MSM suddenly having an epiphany and undertaking to educate the populace or worse, a nuclear blast in one of our cities, we seem fated to go on as a house divided against itself.

Link

The Democrats are quite attached to promoting tribalism rather than nationalism here in the United States. Is it because Leftists think nationalism is a bad and evil thing? Is it cause they associate nationalism with fascism?

But how can that be, when one of the leading complaints about Bush’s efforts in Iraq is that Iraq had no history of being a nation?

Identity politics, creating grief groups, separating out blacks and whites according to blood and skin color, all of those things are what happens when one tribe fights another tribe. A nation is supposed to suppress these various infighting tribal politics for something higher and better. A nation for the good of all, not just for the good of your blood relatives.

And that’s why Democrats use the chickenhawk accusation. They want to accuse you of being too cowardly to defend your tribe, because clans and tribes are the only thing the parochial Leftists and Democrats can accept as being valid. Also because tribal traits consist of valor, courage, killing, the use of violence, and the acceptance of death for the tribe. America is not a tribe though. Perhaps if the Democrats achieve ultimate dictatorial power, that will change.

There is no progress to their “Progressive” policies, except the progress towards ultimate entropy and self-annihilation.

In the end, that’s why the Democrats appear to value courage and fighting on the front, but lambast Petraeus for doing exactly that. Because Petraeus is not part of the Democrat tribe. Petraeus serves America, and the Democrat’s loyalties don’t go to America.

We have enemy tribes outside and inside the nation. An unfortunate situation and a very unstable one.

There was a time in our history when theism was beneficial to humanity, it was our first attempt, our first explanation of science, philosophy, humanitarianism, our first attempt at explaining the natural world its mysteries its seemingly callous and benevolent ways. The neo-liberal Chris Hedges refers to this defense of reason as a “cult of science” and helps explains the circular track where the far-Left and the far-Right shake hands, the common thread that they share is the credulity of faith because faith provides a vast reservoir of people who accept more than they should with what they are given, this reservoir is essential to both the benign politician, as it is to the psychopathic totalitarian, as it is to anyone seeking a large consensus for power.

No doubt about it, world civilization faces its greatest threat from within radical Islam. And on a final note, dabble in moderate theism all you like, it can be a hobby or a reenactment sort of life style, just don’t require it of others, by and large keep it out of the schools, and out of our secular American constitution and government.

That’s cause you’d rather make war against liberty and freedom of choice than against the slavery and tyranny of Islamofascism overlaid ontop of murderous tribal mentalities.

You’d accept 300 deaths a year because you will give away my liberty to pursue my life as I wish to save yourself.

Slavery has always been preferred by the Democrats over fighting and killing for freedom. The Civil War is just one of many examples of this truism.

That’s fine, if you have no problem sacrificing personal liberties to the Islamic Jihad. Others, however, will have a problem sacrificing their liberties just because Chris White here said that statistically there isn’t a threat.

Life is just so much better!

Asshat.

Oh good, it’s a non-issue.

Then I guess we can go to the store and buy a magazine with funny cartoons of Mohammed, we don’t have to install foot-baths in airport restrooms and Comedy Central can poke fun at Islam now.

Right? Right?

Glad you cleared that up.

Won’t you fight for the bacon, Chris?

I’ll fight for bacon!

We may not be able to place these historic events very well—although most of us can do it a lot better after 9/11 than we would have done before.

Most of your readers, yes. In my case, I have to thank Victor Davis Hanson, you, and others.

But the typical American voter (is that a demographical slur?) is likely to think that Lepanto is a European basketball player. We need to get the word out somehow. We need the few center-right newspapers to run articles; we need to convince Fox News to run well-advertised specials, and yes, we need to get HuffPo and Kos to mock us on the point, just to get the idea in front of people who have been kept ignorant. A few of them will want to know more. Not many, but a few now, and a few next fall, and a few next spring ….

in this idea groups like hammass can wage warfare of attrition from inside the state.

This is why we need to revisit our notion of The State. Such an enquiry must go to the very roots of our understanding, which is why I praise Bobbitt’s The Shield of Achilles at every opportunity. I consider it a foundation text for the dilemmas we face at our current juncture.

The more immediate question is whether we must or should extend the benefits of civilization to those who will use those benefits to destroy civilization. Answering this sometimes requires seeing the difference between the foundation and the superstructure. Example: the Fifth Amendment is fundamental. The Miranda ruling is a means of implementing it. Ruling that when a suspect and his attorney are clearly gaming the rules surrounding Miranda or any other rule, those rules need not be applied is not destroying the Fifth Amendment, it is protecting it.

The laws of war allow summary execution on the battlefield. When I see that photo of a Viet Cong shot by an ARVN officer, I am horrified not by the execution, but by the barbarity of the irregular fighter who cannot be trusted to honor his own declaration of surrender. I am profoundly grateful that we are forever out of reach of that individual. I will pray for him, but I am glad that he is dead. If you don’t understand this apparent contradiction, I urge you to seek to understand it, not as a pathology, but in the belief that as precious as this person’s life is, it is not worth the harm that he has chosen to inflict.

That number, 300 a year sounds way too low, but Im sure somebody at Huffpo has gone over them and you can trust them. Thats probably an average. What was it?–3,000 dead in one morning in New York, how many in London and Madrid? Lockerbie, Vienna Airport massacre?

But if you average them up, no big deal. Right Chris?

Just like a any ole highway accident.

The operative conditional in the above statement is “outside of war zones.” One can be sure that ‘war zone’ would be defined in such a way as to minimize the number of deaths and is itself a false distinction. Much the same apology could have been made for WW2-era Nazis.

To my mind any politically motivated, organized violence by actors not officially claimed as part of any nation’s military, whether directed toward soldiers or civilians, should be considered terrorism. Isn’t it who is violent, not who they are violent against, that should define a terrorist? We are not trying to identify their victims; we are trying to identify THEM and their activities. At the very least violence in a war zone purposefully directed against noncombatants should be part of the stats.

Furthermore, the author, John Mueller, does not list a source for these figures - par for the course for terrorist-apologizers/sympathizers/anti-war dupes. One suspects they are plucked steaming out of his own ass.

Far more trustworthy and indicative are figures from sources such as the National Counterterrorism Center. The very first sentence of their Report on Terrorist Incidents – 2006 reads:

According to open-source information, approximately 14,000 terrorist attacks occurred in various countries during 2006, resulting in over 20,000 deaths.

And to really begin to comprehend the true significance of terrorism injuries should be included, not only deaths as in the NCTC report cited above, since a bomb wounds and maims many more than it kills.

http://wits.nctc.gov/Reports.do

First, the author’s point is not that terrorism is not a problem, but that we are phobic. If the former were his point, it would be as silly as dismissing the significance of murder because fewer are murdered than killed in traffic accidents. We probably are excessively in fear of terrorists. However, we had some 2700 deaths in 2001, which in my math averages out to 900 a year since then, so perhaps we can be forgiven our phobia, if that’s what it is. I think it is more anger and indignation that keeps us so preoccupied with terrorism, like a tongue going to a sore tooth. And a part of that anger is toward the people who want to pour oil on our troubled water by minimizing the atrocity and the perversity of Arab terrorism–or want to recast our upset as a kind of psychopathology.

Should we seek psychopathology, let’s look for it among the creators of the atrocity, and their apologists, not among its victims.

Sanctified by Allah and codified by the righteous caliphs after Muhammad, the command to jihad - to kill or convert the unbelievers - established Islam as the oldest totalitarian ideology. War without end.

We in the West have, down through fourteen centuries, missed numerous opportunities to drive the stake into the heart of this bloodthirsty beast. Every time we pass up a propitious moment to finish it off, we allow it to get stronger and become an even bigger menace to civilization and humanity.

al Bana, Hajj Amin al Husseini, and Sayyid Qutb only retrieved the eternal, uncreated, perfect, and unchanging words of Allah and reminded the Ummah of its duty. They reinvigorated the ardor for the Sword of Allah. The modern world and the values of liberty are not the cause of this revival. Would not matter what historical epoch our values crystallized in. Israel is not the cause of this war against us by Satan (Shaytan, in Arabic). Their duty is to either convert us or kill us. One other option, open only to Jews and Christians they consider to be, for their own purposes not our need, People of the Book, is the option of the Dhimma. To be second class citizens in our own lands, paying the crushing jizya with humiliation, and having no legal standing whatsoever. And no right to defend ourselves against capricious violence that can be visited upon us.

I would chose death rather than be a dhimmi.

This war is not over unless and until we become ruthless enough and moral enough to slay the Beast. But we won’t get there unless and until we read their Qur’an and read ahadith Bukhari and Muslim, reading the life of the Prophet and his deeds. Do not trust those among us who have sold out and try to pour honey in our ears, telling us that Islam means “peace.” It means “submission” and that is a calamity for the world.

Right now, believe it or not our worst enemies are the collaborators and traitors among us who run interference for this enemy of all humanity and delude themselves into thinking that they can use Islamic jihad to destroy the West and then seize power from the Muslims.

Q Morning, Mr. President. I have a more general question about the United States’ work to democratize the rest of the world. Many have viewed the United States’ effort to democratize the world — especially nations in the Middle East — as an imposition or invasion on their sovereign rights. Considering that it was, in fact, the Prophet Mohammed who established the first known constitution in the world — I’m referring to the constitution he wrote for the city of Medina –and that his life and the principles outlined in his constitution, such as the championing of the welfare of women, children and the poor, living as an equal among his people, dissolving disputes between the warring clans in Arabia, giving any man or woman in parliament the right to vote and guaranteeing respect for all religions, ironically parallel those principles that we hold most precious in our own Constitution. I’m wondering how might your recently formed Iraq Study Group under the U.S. Institute for Peace explore these striking similarities to forge a new relationship with Iraqis and educate Americans about the democratic principles inherent in Islam?

I will take my stand with what my own eyes and mind have absorbed, and the scholars whose work I have read.

I also have first hand experience of living with a devout, strict Iranian Shia when I was an undergrad. I know these people, and the wellspring of their raison d’etre.

Conservatively estimated, over the course of fourteen centuries of jihad has resulted in the murder of over 270 million human beings. And it was done the low-tech way, so the scope of its savagery even exceeds the butcher’s bill served up by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh. They did it the modern, high-tech way. It is said that Tamerlane built mountains with the skulls of the beheaded the shaheeds accomplished in the Hindu Kush and India. Let us not forget that in the late sixties the faithful of Allah murdered well over a million Hindus and apostate Muslims in Bangladesh and Pakistan. I could go on and on. They were all strictly in observance of the very letter of Allah’s commands, as the Qur’an is upheld, by every orthodox Islamic scholar through the centuries on down to the present coterie at al Azhar, as a divine dictation.

Western appeasers are cowards and moral reprobates. There is a ton of blood on their hands. And from the 7th century on, when the minions of Allah broke out of the Arabian Peninsula, there was no lack of collaborators and traitors in the target societies and states conquered by Islam. The blood of the innocent is on their hands too, and they shall answer for it before the throne of God.

Right now, they are in the phase of reconstituting their power. Mostly dispersed, but they do have states as well who share the burden of fighting in the way of Allah.

After weakening the target, then they brought their armies to bear in order to deliver the coup de main.

If you do not study the detailed history of jihad conquest AND the history of what befell the dhimmi peoples, you will not understand the present. They have a template that is both defining of who they are and maps their way to victory.

The ignorance of it all, combined with the reckless and senseless, post-modernist self-destruction we are experiencing, will put us in a precarious position.

The guy here at least seems sincere in his POV… most of the leftists i know with “truth” in thier name are just deranged america haters.

Neither excess excuses the other.

It is absurd to argue Islamic excesses are due to a few extremist when Muslim Arab governments support and promote the excesses in word and funding. If Islam is a religion of peace, then surely all Muslims ought to denounce the Arab governments underwriting terrorism, jihadism, and supporting Sharia inhumane honor killings done in the name of Allah.

Regardless of religious sect, you protect and defend your life or perish. And regardless of what others may say, it is their actions you must defend against.

Having grown up the Southern U.S. and having a very racist father, it was a very bizarre experience hearing almost the same comments being made against Iraqis that I heard as a child being made against blacks. The same venom, for lack of a better word, was coming out of their mouths as they denigrated the people, culture and societal norms of Iraq.

Equally disturbing for me was the colonialist attitude of most of the business- connected internationals (most of the contractors I talked to were South African or English and most of the businessmen were American and all except one were white males). Remarks like, “We have to show them how it’s really done”, or “They don’t have a clue how it’s done in the West”. There seemed, to me at least, to be no attempt at understanding, much less respecting, the culture of the people they ostensibly are here to work in partnership with.

I have to assume the racist attitudes of the security contractors stems from the necessity for a human being to dehumanize and marginalize another human being in order to kill them. Dehumanization is a mind game military-leaders the world over have used to indoctrinate recruits with and it also seems to be the case with these mercenary soldiers.

The colonialist attitudes are harder to grasp. Is colonialism something unique to white, male Westerners? (And I include myself in this category.) Do we see Iraq the same way as Kipling saw India, that of being “the white man’s burden” to bring Western civilization to the uncivilized Arabs and Kurds?

Those three days at the airport are woven deeply into my spirit. I’m wondering if I have swallowed poison that will harden or embitter me. Or perhaps I have been blessed with a homeopathic remedy of absorbing just enough poison to begin to cure me of my own subconscious racist and colonist tendencies and then be able to help others cure themselves. Time will tell.

Sanded In Baghdad

I pauses these questions hereto you:

1- Why early Americans fighting the British and they won their independence from their Christian Brother and sister who they cam from?

2- How many people who are civilized from US went for decades in Saudi and gulf countries working earning and enjoying their time their till now?

3- how many US military and civilians are on the ground for decade in Iran Saudi and gulf state who are Muslims countries using every manner of deception (taqiyya and kitman) no one killed and hearts their for been a Christian of Jew?

4- How many touring Muslims countries for decades who are Christian and Jew did they humiliated and killed because they are Christians or Jew or “civilized”?

Sergey, ……one thing telling about you, as a common and obvious.

Early 1898 most the Zionists who support Theodore Herzl and on , look very obvious and odd most those Zionists from East Europe are Muslim/Arab hater no surprises.

Look to H. Kissinger, Madelyn Albright and all the list of names will tell you more parallel and similar personalities, hatful attitude against Muslims/Arab specially bringing Islamic time when Othman Sultan flourishing in Europe by trying to see half of the empty class with cherry picking of bad moments that every empire had and have in their long time along the history of civilization from Babylonians till now with US.

Surprisingly Theodore Herzl how mush he did believe in his theory he failed to convinced his son and his daughter with his believes!

I bet you in this is from your country, she spoke well and very clear and detailed points about Islam.
If I to judge here, you are mirroring yourself very clearly what you said about that lady who pausing the question to GW> Bush.

Never mind she is American, its very easy to find who she is, go look what she knew about Islam might a good start for you to learn some thing good not like something from the mouth of one of those who pour honey in our ears as you doing here