Is this guy channeling the Democrat Party talking points or what?
An American member of Al-Qaeda warned in an Internet video that US President George W. Bush should withdraw all his troops from Muslim land or face attacks worse than September 11. Adam Gadahn, a convert to Islam who has been indicted for treason by a US jury, issued a list of demands and warned they were not up for negotiation.“Your failure to heed our demands means that you and your people… will experience things that will make you forget all about the horrors of September 11, Afghanistan and Iraq, and Virginia Tech,” he said in the video posted on Tuesday.
“You’re losing on all fronts and losing big time,” said Gadahn, who is the English-language spokesman for Osama bin Laden’s terror network.
But hey… American liberals… we aren’t at war, are we? I mean his use of the phrase “all fronts” obviously doesn’t mean that al-Qaeda views Iraq as a front in World War III…. that would be crazy talk!
“We don’t negotiate with war criminals and baby killers like you. No, these are legitimate demands which must be met,” he said.
Wow, now the American terrorist is starting to sound like Democrat politicians John Kerry, Jack Murtha and Dick Durbin. I guess al-Qaeda does listen to the American Democrats talking points.
Unreal.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
And the Democrats don’t even see how much they sound just like the terrorists. Good commentary.
The real question is, are the terrorists echoing the Democrats, or are the Democrats echoing the terrorists?
If the Democrats set out as a policy goal to ensure the defeat of the United States, what would they be doing differently than what they are doing now?
-Defunding the war – Check.
-Collaborating with Enemy – Check (Pelosi in Syria).
-Echoing enemy propaganda – Check.
-Demoralizing American troops – Check.
-Sabotaging intelligence capabilities – Check.
Isn’t it amazing how much this guy sounds like Ian, keogh, sean, jimmy, and Kevin? Calling us “war criminals’ and “baby killers”, insisting we’re “losing on all fronts and losing big-time”, and that the terrorist’s demands are “legitimate”?
Well, NDT et al, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, etc. etc…
And is it no wonder that neither the Dhimmicrats nor their apologists in both the MSM and the lefty blogs or blogtrolls seek to distance themselves from this guy? What a surprise…
Sheesh.
Regards,
Peter H.
#5. Not amazing at all, since I’ve never said anything approaching those quotes of yours there. Go back to playing 24 now.
#6. Why don’t you stop being a puss and just advocate for civil war since you hate at least half of America?
#5. To be clear: we aren’t losing in Iraq. We already lost. And it was never winnable. Only 20% of the country, people living in the 51st state of Myopia, fails to see that.
#4. The President is the one running around quoting bin Laden (isn’t he supposed to be wanted: dead or alive?) in his speeches anymore. Quoting. Doing PR for bin Laden, the President of the United States is… Go figure.
First this:
Not amazing at all, since I’ve never said anything approaching those quotes of yours there.
Then, two posts later:
To be clear: we aren’t losing in Iraq. We already lost.
Typical Democrat. Say something, claim you never said anything like that, then say it again.
Why don’t you stop being a puss and just advocate for civil war since you hate at least half of America?
Because it’s hardly necessary. We have in place a governmental system that does a fairly good job of turning out the people who don’t need to be in office.
Furthermore, we’re also aware of the fact that the vast majority of the American people don’t share the insane hatred of Democrats like Pelosi and Reid, both of whom have openly supported and endorsed terrorist states and organizations, badmouthed our troops as war criminals and subhuman, claimed terrorist attacks against US interests are legitimate, and tried to cut funding to all armed forces — all because it’s anti-Bush.
The United States will survive the attacks of Pelosi and Reid quite nicely without armed insurrection.
You want more left-lib hypocrisy? The management of Google, the company that censors Republican ads and is all nice and cozy with the butchers of Beijing is bashing Sweden for its counter-terrorism policies.
“Why don’t you stop being a puss and just advocate for civil war since you hate at least half of America?”
Okay, sean-of-the-lower-case-clan, please show me where I said something even approaching that. I double-dog-dare you.
(Crickets chirping)
Regards,
Peter H.
And seanny-boy, if you find the American al-Qaeda’s remarks so distasteful and not compatible with your own…why don’t you repudiate them???
You won’t, because you echoed his talking point that Bruce highlighted in the article. Remember?
““You’re losing on all fronts and losing big time,” said Gadahn, who is the English-language spokesman for Osama bin Laden’s terror network.”
And here’s your riposte: ” To be clear: we aren’t losing in Iraq. We already lost. And it was never winnable. Only 20% of the country, people living in the 51st state of Myopia, fails to see that.”
Go ahead. Repeat after me: “I do not agree with anything that Adam Gadahn said with respect to his views.”
I bet you can’t do it. Because you and your ilk are all anti-American terrorist sympathizers. Yes, I DO QUESTION your patriotism.
Regards,
Peter H.
LOL….my favorite line, V the K, in that entire article about Google was this:
“The proposal stems from a tradition begun by Saudi Arabia and China and simply has no place in a Western democracy,” he said.
Not that they cared, of course, when China was doing it, nor did it stop them from locating their business there…….
Of course, they’re also hosting John Edwards today, which means we should all be Googling “terrorist denial”.
#11 – V the K – the defeatist / leftist / appeasement MO is all about going with the safe target. Never stand up to the dangerous target… the person / people that are actually trying to gain power over you.
(because that might entail, you know, valuing the military)
#13. There is describing reality–that is one kind of statement. There is expressing values–that is another kind of statement. One can describe reality (we lost Iraq, if only because there’s never been a standard by which we could measure success!) and still love one’s country and Constitution.
YOU might have difficulty with different kinds of statements and YOU may conflate them. Hell, it makes the world more black and white and thereby easier to comprehend. But other people are quite comfortable with a richer language.
#12. No balls. You talk alot of shit and cliches, but back it up with nothing.
#12. I bet you can’t do it. Because you and your ilk are all anti-American terrorist sympathizers. Yes, I DO QUESTION your patriotism.
Regards,
Peter H.
AND there you have it. So why not start shooting Americans that belong to some kind of ‘ilk’ defined solely by you and your 20% gang? This is, after all, as this joke of a blog says, THE WORLD WAR THREE!!! Don’t you think you should start some kind of resistance? At some point, doesn’t reality call you to something greater than the 101st Flying Keyboard Strokers? LOL. Is it THE WORLD WAR THREE or not, ballless man?
In other words, seantard, you agree with al-Qaeda. With Americans like you, who needs terrorists?
YOU are the one with no balls and can back it up with nothing. I gave you an opportunity to repudiate al-Qaeda’s Dhimmicrat talking points, and you gave me shit on a shingle. You can’t even provide “proof” of anything I’ve said, let alone your own beliefs.
You are nothing but an empty windbag and a little turd to boot. You are no longer worthy of any serious consideration.
SNAP – you are dismissed. Go take a flying leap and kiss Osama’s ass.
Regards,
Peter H.
Little sean – if you meant your Iraq statement as a description of reality, you fail there too.
Iraq has actually been several wars… a series of them.
The first war was to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Did we? Check. (That’s what the aircraft carrier’s “Mission Accomplished” banner was about, btw) No loss there.
The second war was to have its people write a democratic constitution and hold elections without significant terrorist interference. Did they? Check. Again, no loss. Another big victory.
The third, current war is to defeat the agents of al Qaeda and Iran in Iraq, at least long enough so Iraqi security forces can hold the line after we leave and prevent a genocide the size of 100 Darfurs that the terrorists would love to happen. That war is ongoing.
So, as a point of fact: no rational person can say yet if we’ve won or lost the current Iraq war. 150,000 U.S. troops on the ground say we haven’t, and are giving the struggle of their lives to prove it. Try having a little respect for them, OK sean? Whenever you proclaim “We’ve lost”, you are helping the enemy, because the enemy wants to create that perception and then have it become reality.
And we should add that sean just expressed his sick desire that Samuel Cheney not die of crib death — but only because sean wants him beaten up and bullied later.
with a team like bush-ashcroft-rice not preventing 9-11 you all have nothing to say.
Why bother? You’re aborting yourselves into oblivion anyway.
Don’t forget all the Bush appointees that the liberals log-jammed in confirmation hearings. Oh and what was that crammed in Sandy Burglar’s pants? What did he “put back” in the archives instead?
***Is this guy channeling the Democrat Party talking points or what?***
I thought the democrat party WAS Al Qaeda.
Not exactly. More like Sinn Fein, working merrily behind the scenes to protect and enable terrorism while getting all big-eyed and Prissy-esque in public: “Laws, we don’t know nothin’ about helpin’ no terrorists!”
#25 – And like Vivien Leigh, I would be more than happy to b****slap them into submission.
But I will think about it tomorrow. (Sigh) After all, tomorrow is another day.
(Cue “Tara” theme and wide-angle lens of old plantation in the sunset.)
Regards,
Peter H.
Peter, we seem to be mutually stuck on GWTW today.