‘The United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims.’Not only is this terrorist-symp crap in the first place, but note the odd and chilling presence of that key qualifier "innocent" -- The US has taken more Muslim lives than al-Qaeda has taken innocent non-Muslim lives.
Why is he restricting it to "innocent" non-Muslim lives? He didn't restrict the part about the US killing Muslims to "innocent" Muslims.
Why is he differentiating the "innocent" from the, what?, guilty or deserving victims of Islamic terrorism?
Of the 2,996 victims of 9/11 -- how many were "innocent" and how many, would he say, were well-served by justice?
IT'S OPEN SEASON
2 comments:
So let me understand this .. you are hinting there is credibility problem here somewhere?
;)
I think there are some people who UNDERSTAND.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/22/AR2010082202895.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100823/NEWS01/8230316/Center-solicits-Muslims-financial-aid-to-complete-Murfreesboro-mosque
And then over the line....
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100822/NEWS01/8220324/Pat-Robertson-raises-concerns-about-Murfreesboro-mosque
SO WHAT ARE THEY PLANNING TO TEACH?
That's really the only question that matters. And the answer must have credibility.
The right answer for america means they are on the road to apostasy and won't get overseas funding.
Yes, you are correct. Thanks for adding that.
Post a Comment