So you think it would have been ok to desecrate the body?

And I agree, Frank Gafney and Bret Beitbart are not fair and balanced on any subject. :)

Another perspective from an Obama hater and Islamophobe:
Overridden by senior military and intel officials?

They staged a coup and we missed it. :eek:

more:
But my favorite is Judson Phililps, head of the Tea Party Nation:
I can picture Obama and the national security team in the WH situation room. "Hmmmm, should we screw Trump just for the hell of it?"

I hate this stupid fooking two-thread thing. I have to try to remember which is in what. Are we mad in this one, or funny?

I just want to know who Trump fired, dammit. :mad:

WTF? Where is that coming from. I read the link, noticed YOUR username in it & made a joke reference to it.
Nothing more. Paranoid much?

You couldn't pay me to even look at that megalomaniac freak of nature. Pictures of him, unavoidable, make me barf. :p:

You're funny when you're mad.

I know. ;)

Never watch it either.

I prefer Iron Chef America and I root the feriner, Morimoto, when he battles.

Anyone remember the story of Esther from the Old Testament?

"The villain of the story is Haman, an arrogant, egotistical advisor to the king. Haman hated Mordecai because Mordecai refused to bow down to Haman, so Haman plotted to destroy the Jewish people. In a speech that is all too familiar to Jews, Haman told the king, "There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your realm. Their laws are different from those of every other people's, and they do not observe the king's laws; therefore it is not befitting the king to tolerate them." (Esther 3:8). The king gave the fate of the Jewish people to Haman, to do as he pleased to them. Haman planned to exterminate all of the Jews."

Sound a little familiar? Kind of like Bin Laden wanting to destroy the "infidel" Westerners because they do not obey the laws of Islam?

"[Ester's cousin] Mordecai, [who had raised her as if she were his daughter], persuaded Esther to speak to the king on behalf of the Jewish people. This was a dangerous thing for Esther to do, because anyone who came into the king's presence without being summoned could be put to death, and she had not been summoned. Esther fasted for three days to prepare herself, then went into the king. He welcomed her. Later, she told him of Haman's plot against her people. The Jewish people were saved, and Haman and his ten sons were hanged on the gallows that had been prepared for Mordecai."

Any guesses what happened next?

"19Therefore the Jews of the villages, that dwelt in the unwalled towns, made the fourteenth day of the month Adar a day of gladness and feasting, and a good day, and of sending portions one to another.

20And Mordecai wrote these things, and sent letters unto all the Jews that were in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, both nigh and far,

21To establish this among them, that they should keep the fourteenth day of the month Adar, and the fifteenth day of the same, yearly,

And every year for thousands of years, Jews have celebrated; not the demise of Haman, but the saving of our People. We are commanded to drink until we can no longer tell the difference between "cursed be Haman" and "blessed be Mordechai", not to create debauchery, but "to dissolve the differences between us and encourage unity." "In addition to good food and lots of alcohol, the meal is characterized by its zany raucous atmosphere - trombones blare, silly string flies, and grown men dance together for hours on end."

If the events of the last 20+ years occurred during biblical times, the stories about which were passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth, to later be inscribed in a book, there is little doubt that it would be told very similarly. Good triumphed over evil. A mighty "King/Nation" took down the enemy to save the People who were the targets of said evil. And the People rejoiced at their salvation.

Thus is human nature. Perhaps because I've been celebrating in such a way for my entire life, based on a very similar story in history, I view the celebratory atmosphere through a different lens than others. I don't find it offensive, I find it cathartic.


Sources:
http://www.jewfaq.org/holiday9.htm
http://purim.spike-jamie.com/meal.html
http://judaism.about.com/od/holidays...y-Of-Purim.htm
http://kingjbible.com/esther/7.htm
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+9&version=KJV

Here's a sure-fire best seller. Put pictures of bin Laden on those men's room urinal deodorizer cakes. Guaranteed to sell out.

Yes. Chop it up and drop bits of it for shark bait. But a single big bit of shark bait works equally well.

How about the peeing on you part? ;)

I get the humor in the posts here.

What I was trying to address, albeit w/o acknowledging the humor that I didnt find all that funny, was the real hate expressed by the likes of Gafney, Geller, Breitbart, etc., the Mercenary's guys and gal.

Where did Breitbart express hate?

Andrew Breitbart's BigPeace.com (posted earlier):
His site, he is accountable.

Why is that hate speech?

Because you disagree with it? Because you say it is so?

Well if he's still in business, He can sell 'em now! :-)

An interesting perspective, thanks Jill. Though, I'd have preferred to think that we as a society have become more civilised over the past 2-3000 years.

It is speech to incite anti-Islam sentiments in the same manner as Gafney and Geller.

From the bullshit about the Islamic extremists using Ground Zero build a mosque to condoning spitting on the dead body.

Apparently not - You shit on me for no reason.

My apologizes if I misread your post.

Sounds like an opinion to me. He is not saying everyone else should go out and do what he wants to do.

And so since you think other people believe that Islamists who live in that area wanted to build a mosque at ground zero that makes them extremists or that you know what their motivation is as to why they chose such a location? Please explain how you know what their motivation was to place the mosque at such a location?

So he wants to be able to spit on Bin Laden's dead body? Millions around the world would most likely join him. That does not make that action against that one man "hate speech".

IN OTHER NEWS:

GENERALISSIMO FRANCISCO FRANCO IS STILL DEAD.

(Brought to you by Bartles and James Whine and Poor Pitiful Me Records)

Agreed! Great perspective.

Now I want a haman tashan (sp), except the kind my grandma made with prunes...ewwww.

You're welcome. But methinks you expect too much. It takes millions of years to evolve. Thousands is a mere speck of dust in the desert.

Besides, part of the point of that story is that thousands of years later, millions (maybe billions?) of people the world over are still using the Bible as their moral guide. That being the case, it should be easy to understand why people are still behaving the way we did during Bible times. Awww, every body sing!

Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya.

This thread needs more sponstators.

Ooooooohhhhhh Looooooorrrrrdddd......Kummmmbbbaaaaayyyaaaa.

Thank you. :) And yeah, the poppy seed ones are killah! Mmmm, now I'm hungry, too.

(baritone) Someone's postin' here
Kumbaya
Someone's postin' here
Kumbaya
Someone's postin' here
Kumbaya
Ohhhh looooo-oooord, Kumbaya

Nice harmony!

PC out of control

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world...to-934034.html

They could have just called it Operation Kill Sand N*****. :eyebrow:

Or they could have just nick named him Obama... I am sure no one would have cared about that one! Not!

Sy Hersh, Abetted by Olbermann, Slandered SEALs That Later Killed Bin Laden as Cheney's Personal Assassins

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-co...#ixzz1LPYG4LMH

Hipster Irony Alert!: Watch Stephen Colbert Celebrate Results of Cheney’s ‘Secret, Lawless Assassination Squad’ and ‘Torture’

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jj...d-and-torture/

From the same article, the Muslim Brotherhood is insidiously infiltrating American society and the federal government through some nefarious connections to every major Islamic organization in the country as well as a Muslim appointee to a DHS advisory committee:
They cite evidence in lawsuits, documents, etc, but never provide links. Mostly they just link to each other as evidence or expect readers to take them at their word.

Mercenary, maybe you have links to the source documents?

As I said in another discussion, it is reminiscent of the McCarthy red-baiting era of the past.

The extremists making the allegations dont have to prove it, but rather those they charge with ties to terrorist organization must prove they do not have such ties.

I'm sure it will come as no surprise to you, but do you know who I blame for this misunderstanding?

George W. Bush & Dick Cheney.

The manner in which they executed the entire Afghanistan/Iraq/"War on Terror" debacle was deceitful from the start. It was done with subterfuge and coverups. We had the outing of a CIA agent's identity because her husband dared expose the "yellow cake" lie. We had Blackwater. We had a diversion from the real enemy -- the Taliban and Al Qaeda -- to an act of sheer vengeance against a sovereign leader who they knew posed no real risk, nor were they harboring Al Qaeda, let alone "Enemy Number 1", Osama bin Laden. We had Abu Gharib. We had "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques," aka torture -- orders that were kept secret from even Congress.

When you have leadership that acts sneaky and underhanded, is there any surprise that they are viewed as sneaky and underhanded?

Why was there no explanation by the Administration as to who these "assassins" were? Why were we not informed as to who they were targeting and/or "taking out" in our name?

Therein lies the difference between the Obama Administration and the Bush Administration with regard to opinion about JSOC. President Obama utilized them with the full awareness of pertinent members of Congress, the CIA, and every one of his top Security Advisers. And when the act was carried out, the American public was informed.

Not so with Bush/Cheney.

They reaped what they sowed. Unfortunately, as in many other circumstances, they didn't care who became "collateral damage," even if that meant it was JSOC.

BS. Pelosi even admitted they were briefed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120801664.html

Need to know. You didn't need to know.

More bs, the American public does not need to know.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Where is the liberal outcry over the drone attacks authorized continually by Obama, and in fact, significantly increased in frequency, and the "collateral damage they have caused?

The burden is on the Muslim Brotherhood, they have a long history of support and birth as a terrorist organization.

Nice set of excuses to brush off the constant lies, deceit and subterfuge associated with the Bush Administration, as if their behavior had nothing whatsoever to do with how the public perceived things then, in comparison to how we're perceiving things now.

My post wasn't intended as an opportunity for you to pick it apart with your snotty "need to know" bullshit, implying that I'm stupid about how things work with secret ops. It was meant as an illustration as to why Keith Olbermann and "the Left" would hear about a secret group of men going out and doing "hits" at the bequest of Dick Cheney, and call them "assassins", as opposed to hearing about an operation to take out the world's most wanted terrorist under Barack Obama and hailing those same men as heroes.

You're the one who made the post suggesting that Liberals are hypocrites for hailing Team 6 as heroes today, but having called them assassins in the past. I'm attempting to explain to you WHY that might be. Do you want to understand or do you just want to demonize your political opponents?

Thats how it works in an oppressive state. The person/organization charged has to prove innocence.

In America, we do things differently. If one makes allegations against another person/organization, the burden of proof rests with the one making the charge.

Gafney/Geller/Breitbart have the obligation to offer more than the undocumented court "evidence" or innuendo.

CAIR or other Islamic organizations or Kareem Shora (appointed to the DHS advisory committee) do not have to prove their innocence.

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence

You missed the point. You have no need to know.

Your opinion. I say an organization that has a long and well documented history of the support of terrorism has the burden of proof that they have changed their ways, not the other way around.

Nice try in an attempt to label those who disagree with you as supporting McCarthyism. "That dog won't hunt", Willie "Cigar" Clinton.

It is not a matter of disagreeing with me.

It is a matter of how we do things in this country.

Your guys and gal smear organizations and citizens in this country with alleged evidence and innuendos about their "affiliations" and refuse to document it with facts.

That my friend is McCarthyism at its worst.

No it has to do with the organization you are trying to legitimize. You don't get to define, "how we do things in this country". You don't get to set the bar as a faceless nameless poster on a web forum. What are your credentials that allow you to do that?

The history of the Muslim Brotherhood is well documented. Prove me wrong.

Where is the documented evidence that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Students Association (MSA) or Muslim American Society (MAS) have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Or that Arif Alikhan or Kareen Shora, two muslims serving in the DHS and who have been smeared by your friends based on inuendo and undocumented "evidence", have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood

McCarthyism in its newest iteration.

So, they will die to establish Islam. What does that mean to you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy3MG...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2jgQ...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYEV0...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYFnE...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqJw8...eature=related

Would that be like posting videos of selected Tea Party members making racists remarks and concluding that the Tea Party is racist?

You're the one who's missing the point.

But as to your off-subject point, you're wrong. On many issues the citizens of this country damn well need to know what our government is up to in our name. Why in the hell do you think the framers gave us those beloved Second Amendment rights that your side always crows about?

We haven't found reason enough to overthrow the government to this point, but you'd bloody well best believe that if my government is TORTURING people, "We the People" need to know about it so we can put a stop to it to the extent we are able. And if the right circumstances present themselves, you're damn straight I'll be taking up arms in the formation of an "organized militia" if necessary.

Oh, SNAP!

Oh Snap!

What fucking duplicity!

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/201...nsin-hate.html

Fuck off. You just don't always need to know. I don't care about the rest of your liberal tripe.

I can see no good coming from a government being able to secretly torture people. This never ends well.

Also, the Muslim Brotherhood are a joke. They are loud, but say nothing. Nobody in Egypt who isn't an actual member listens to a word they say.

OH Snap to that bitch!

http://ironicsurrealism.blogivists.c...-walker-image/

http://richc.myarchive.us/2011/02/wi...d-with-unions/

http://richc.myarchive.us/2011/02/wi...d-with-unions/

YOU have to prove yourself right. Burden of proof is on you. You can't make a statement and not back it up with documented facts, then tell someone else that burden is on them.
INNOCENT until proven guilty. Not the other way around.
Just like in a law suit, burden of proof is on the person making the accusation. You are making the accusation, therefor, it is your responsibility to provide the proof.

When we look at what the people need to know about what the government is up to, there are a number of different perspectives, and they certainly don't all have the same answer.

Surely anyone can understand that if a government has charged the military or some other agency to deal with a certain individual, it's not going to be helpful if everyone in the country knows what's going on, therefore the people find out after the fact and then wonder why they weren't consulted.

The purpose of having a democratically elected government is so that every person has the right to have a say in who represents their own personal views in government because we all understand that if every decision had to be made with the approval of every person, we'd never get anywhere.

So, you vote for your representative and trust that they're going to make the right decisions on your behalf. If you're not happy with it, you don't vote for them again.

If you don't vote, IMO, you shouldn't have a right to complain either way.