TAKING BACK AMERICA!

    Monday, August 01, 2005

    Were You Duped To Believe a Terrorist?


    Islamic extremist Hussain Osman, aka, Isaac Hamdi said he carried out his failed terrorist attack because "the bombs were meant to draw attention to anger over the war in Iraq and not to kill anyone.". Liberals and socialist will love this terrorist - the words of this terrorist gives them (in their mind) justification that President Bush is the cause for terrorism (despite the fact terrorism attacks have occurred before either Bush's presidency and will continue after). Will smarter folks believe the word of a terrorist?
    He was photographed running from the scene of where he placed his explosives. If they were not meant to kill, why did he feel he had to run - unless he knew there would be ripping of flesh of innocent women and children as well as males?
    His innocent little unexploded bombs (16 of them found in a car) had sharp heavy duty short nails surrounding the outer casing. Do you believe this construction resembles an innocent little fire cracker to simply meant to draw attention?
    From a news article titled London bombers 'had 16 unexploded bombs':
    Exclusive pictures obtained by the US network show some of the bombs flat-packed like pancakes, while others were packed with nails to use as shrapnel.
    If you believe the word of this terrorist then I'd really have to ask: Where's Your Brain!? It's well know terrorist SOP to, upon capture, say whatever you can to do as much psychological damage, often via the media channels, to the infidel as possible. Well he was captured, and he followed the terrorist SOP - were you DUMB enough to fall for it?

    11 comments:

    : JustaDog said...

    Some comments on this post were deleted when I changed the comment options last night. I sometimes post the afternoon or night before and post-date the post. In such case I don't like comments appearing before the intended showing of the post (although when I do so, obviously some will see it). If you don't like my policy then don't come back - simple huh?

    For you in particular I've deleted posts where you try to preach Taoism, and my blog is not a preaching platform for you - use your blog (which hardly anyone reads).

    The most recent comment you left for this post had nothing to do with the post - so comments that are not post-related are deleted. If you don't like my policy then don't come back - simple huh?

    Some anonymous posts I delete if they are mean and the person is a coward not to identify themselves. Again, if you don't like that then don't come back.

    If you have problems elsewhere you can contact the support people at Blogger. The services are free and I can't complain like you do.

    Pundit said...

    Terrorism has been around since one group of people decided they didn't like another. The American colonists terrorized the British right up to the revolutionary war, and continued during the war to conduct insurgent warfare. We eventually beat them out of the country. However, terrorism to the extent we see it today did not occur until the U.S. got involved in Iraq. I don't know how people can think that the world-wide occurrences that have happened since the first gulf war and now this one existed continuously previous to what we are experiencing today, with extensive networks that exist. The thing that is worse than aiding terrorists is to assume things that never were and base a strategy on those myths. That might be why so many contradictory reports come out of Washington. It might also account for why even the President has recently commissioned a special study to determine what really happened, as has Donald Rumsfeld and Condolezza Rice when she was the National Security Advisor. I have covered these issues with names, dates, and where this information could be found at my own blogsite. Until we get on the right track, this mess will continue as it has, with no real progress. We can kill a handful here, capture a low-leve leader there, or bust up a few cells but there are tens of thousands out there waiting to take their place. Our focus has to change. The recently-leaked information that wound up in the August 1 issue of U.S. News and World Report, based on a recent study conducted at the pentagon, substantiates this. I think that reveals much more and is more reliable than the rantings of a crazed criminal terrorist. Even the inital fatwas from Osama bin Laden were very direct in that the attacks against the west would continue until the "infidel" was forced to leave their lands. Hamas has issued the same statements regarding Israel. How much more plain does it have to be? We can establish control over the middle east without doing things that incite domestic uprisings.

    : JustaDog said...

    Pundit - very good points! Thank you for your rational thought as well.

    trey - your comment was deleted again since it had nothing to do with the post. Will you ever grasp the concept?

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    Pundit,
    I think you have a much better handle on this overall issue than MOST people who write for or comment on this blog!!

    : JustaDog said...

    However pundit, I would add that even if the USA were to pull totally out of the Middle East region that would not stop the Islamic extremists from wanting to destroy the USA, kill all Americans, etc. Although I really don't condone the USA playing police throughout the world (just like I don't condone the USA from babysitting the rest of the world with $$$), there is no justification for blowing up innocent women and children.

    Pundit said...

    Granted these idiots are out of control. Rather than spend $100 billion per year on fighting a never-ending land campaign, we could use what many political scientists call "off-shore balancing." This entails the stationing of aircraft carrier groups and guided missile submarines in international waters near trouble spots. We need to take a hands-off approach to how the countries are run internally. Let the U.N. worry about humanitarian issues. When it looks like things are going to spill out and involve other countries or the U.S., we attack. If we pulled out of middle-East countries, as the insurgents supposedly want, they would be obligated under their own rhetoric to cease their actions. If they don't, we take more serious actions against host governments. The excuses that are given by the Pakistanis and Saudis are not sufficient. When Khaddaffi declared war on the U.S. during the Reagan Administration, Ronnie Baby bounced some 2,000 pound bombs into his palace and his tent. He was severly injured, and family members died. There was no warning, no media hype, it just happened. As a result, Lybia ceased all actions and support for terrorists and went silent for almost 25 years. We blew it with Iraq, not only through poor reasoning for the war, but once we decided, we made such a public show of it that we ruined any chance of getting the people we were after. Same with the post 9/11 attacks in Afghanistan. We should have had sufficient forces ready for immediate use, without warning, no consultation with congress, and no involvement of the media. A quick, dirty, hefty strike coming out of the blue most likely would have gotten the people we wanted and ended this much more quickly with less fuss, and less spread of insurgency.

    : JustaDog said...

    Ahhh - now you're talk'n my language!

    But will we ever have a Ronnie again? 'fraid Bush is no Ronnie.

    simoncat said...

    You have some good points, Pundit, but, one thing you forget in your insistence that terrorism did not start up until American "invasion" is that America and and the Western world supplied the middle East and Arabia with money for oil that it had never seen before. And instead of using all that delicious money to help their populations and upgrade their societies, they decided to to keep it in the hands of the few who live like kings, and spend it murdering everyone who didn't agree with them..like the Israelis, their neighbours, any internal religious sects they didn't like and of course, the Big Blame Taker: America.

    I agree with your opinion that the strike should have been fast and clean. However, with all the liberals in your country crying that Bush should have toed the UN line ,and acted "multilaterally", what the hell could you expect? Since Ronnie was Prez, the leftist media has gained great grounds in the minds of the average American (and Canadian, and European...)

    : JustaDog said...

    Perhaps some Americans suffer from can't-see-the-forest-through-the-trees syndrom. I find Canadians often have a better grasp of the USA than some Americans!

    Pundit said...

    One of the problems with oil money is that it has gone to the leaders of the countries, like the Saudi Royal Family, who have in turn sold rights to exploit the oil resources to the British and the Americans. ARAMCO (Arab-American Oil company) was jointly owned by Certain wealthy Arabs and Americans for decades and only recently was bought out by Arab concerns. By maintaining strong ties to the US and letting resources be exported to the West while the money went to the Arab friends of the West is one of the problems leading to hatred of the West by the commoners. Unocal, Chevron, and Haliburton, Shell, and British Petroleum (who has recently been buying into American suppliers) were notorious for sending in their own people to staff and run the wells, and only token hirings went to the locals. The population felt cheated. That's whys the Saudis themselves have not totally escaped terrorist acts. Bin Laden's hatred of the Royal Family is one reason he no longer resides in Saudi Arabia. That's why I keep hitting on the complexity of this "war on terrorism," because of the number of factors that enter into this. This isn't just a matter of "they hate us because Islam is a violent religion." Some historians see current problems as being a direct result of British Imperialism and the Great Game involving Britain, Russia, and India that dates back to the 19th century.

    The Rambling Taoist said...

    Pundit,
    Again, I think you have a firm grasp on the overall situation. As you aptly stated, this is a most complicated issue and complicated issues are rarely solved by simplistic plans.