By Ted Belman
Donald Trump’s great speech following the Orlando jihad attack failed to single out the ideology that must also be defeated. Much to my surprise and appreciation, Hillary did just that, in yesterday’s speech, in spades.
“It is long past time for the Saudis, the Qataris, and the Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations….“
“And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path toward extremism.” (snip)
“The Orlando terrorist may be dead, but the virus that poisoned his mind remains very much alive and we must attack it with clear eyes, steady hands, unwavering determination and pride in our country and our values…”
“The threat is metastasizing….”
“We face a twisted ideology and poisoned psychology that inspires the so-called lone wolves,”
These statements are so right-on that I will give her a pass for referring to the killer as a “lone wolf.”
Whether he was appointed by an organization to do this or did it on his own as a result of the atmosphere that has been created by them, is immaterial. The same goes for the so-called “lone wolves” in Israel. Their actions are all products of the same “twisted ideology and poisoned psychology”.
That doesn’t mean that I would vote for her. No way. She is still poison. Why didn’t she say such things when she was Secretary of State, let alone act on them?
I have no confidence that she would follow through, but Trump would.
Donald Trump’s great speech following the Orlando jihad attack failed to single out the ideology that must also be defeated. Much to my surprise and appreciation, Hillary did just that, in yesterday’s speech, in spades.
“It is long past time for the Saudis, the Qataris, and the Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations….“
“And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path toward extremism.” (snip)
“The Orlando terrorist may be dead, but the virus that poisoned his mind remains very much alive and we must attack it with clear eyes, steady hands, unwavering determination and pride in our country and our values…”
“The threat is metastasizing….”
“We face a twisted ideology and poisoned psychology that inspires the so-called lone wolves,”
These statements are so right-on that I will give her a pass for referring to the killer as a “lone wolf.”
Whether he was appointed by an organization to do this or did it on his own as a result of the atmosphere that has been created by them, is immaterial. The same goes for the so-called “lone wolves” in Israel. Their actions are all products of the same “twisted ideology and poisoned psychology”.
That doesn’t mean that I would vote for her. No way. She is still poison. Why didn’t she say such things when she was Secretary of State, let alone act on them?
I have no confidence that she would follow through, but Trump would.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/orlando_jihad_massacre_hillary_clinton_makes_a_very_important_point_that_trump_missed.html#ixzz4BYEZimua
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
CuriousAmerican Said:
NO, it is the honor killers who daily kill jews and teach their children that jews are apes and pigs who are vicious and insane… it is the height of mercy to remove them from the jews to protect the jews. It is also the heights of mercy to not kill or incarcerate those vicious and insane lunatics but to allow them to escape to their brothers.
It is you who is vicious and insane for always coming here to convince the jews to be caring to those who daily kill jews and christians AND teach their toddlers that jews are sons of apes and pigs….. only vicious sadistic lunatics would try and swindle the Jews into such an MO.
I have exposed you many times here as a vicious and sadistic lunatic who repeatedly arrives to convince the jews that the scum who daily kill jews and teach their toddlers that jews are sons of apes and pigs are deserving of more than what they now get. Criminals and lunatics are deprived of their rights in ALL civilized societies and the honor killers are collective subscribers to criminal and lunatic behavior.
Why do you seek to convince Jews that they should not remove the jew killers as quickly as possible? Apparently you think its ok if the jews pay them blood money extortion to leave as opposed to just bussing them out. Basically, your only mantra is to get the jews to pay money to their killers. Such a mantra is both vicious and lunacy.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Re-read the above sentence.
Of course, American English is my native tongue.
Your posts are getting more bizarre by the minute.
And you call me a one-note song.
You are vicious and insane.
CuriousAmerican Said:
No one expects Hillary to be trustworthy. Jew should and must depend on themselves.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Is English your native language ?
Keli-A Said:
Yamit82 of course, your evil twin, now that I hold him captive in the a cave in the Chisos of West Texas.
CuriousAmerican Said:
😛 😛 😛
we can hide it just like it is being hid in syria, iraq, lebanon, libya,……………
they are demonstrating the best method of moving honor killers… why stand in the way of progress?
while we sit and discuss the talmudic proportions of what to do with the honor killers and where to send them…. we see before our eyes the best method of how and where…. no need to figure it all out… why re invent the wheel?
best method… I keep telling you …. zero tolerance on anti semitism followed by deportation, trucks to the borders of hostile enemy lands, deposit the honor killers over the border, buy the popcorn and watch the fireworks…. those who cant solve the problem when the honor killers are in Israel will quickly solve it when they arrive to their lands… or they can become like iraq and syria. You should be giving me the nobel prize for sustainable peace for that plan.
I have to check that out. THANKS!
Was the support public? Hilary was slammed. Reagan and Cheney were not.
That may have been poor judgment, but was it hateful?!
Would you have preferred, “We believe the Jewish state is bound to fail from demographic collapse, yet to make Israel happy, we will let Israel pursue self-destructive policies, even if it means their end.”
Do not attribue to malice what can be ascribed to incompetence. – Hanlon’s razor.
In the 1980s, Arab vs Jewish births per mother were like 8 to 2.3. It was a big story in the media. Fear of a demographic collapse was real. And there is conjecture that just before Sharon left Gaza in 2005, the Jews were only 47% of the population between the River and the Sea – this was before the Orthodox birthrate took off. So the prediction came to pass, albeit temporarily.
If Israel were to return to the status quo ante of 2004, the demographic threat would re-assert itself immediately. The report may have been honest more than hateful.
The paper was an educated guess,and not a bad one. In 2005, it may temporarily have come true.
Hilary is still not trustworthy for Israel.
Whatever you think of me? – good or bad – who am I kidding? you think of me as bad.
The fact is that Israel has roughly 4-4.3 Million disenfranchised Arabs in J&S and Gaza.
As much as I hate Islam, and consider Mohammed a pig, there is a problem with keeping that large a percentage of the population under Israel’s control without the franchise, or any feedback say in the government which controls their borders, airspace, immigration, registration, export and import, movement, etc. – even if that disenfranchisement is necessary for security.
I say Israel’s control, because Gaza is effectually controlled at the perimeters by Israel.
Hate the Arabs, wish them suffering all you want, the situation is not stable. Bernard Ross and Bear Klein can insult me all they want, but this does not address the problem.
I do not ask you to divide the land, but if you are willing to continue this policy for centuries, you will not get the peace you want.
If you want to evict them, then, find a way to hide it from the media. What you are doing now is not working as well as you would like.
CuriousAmerican Said:
No it was Reagan!!!
1989
With Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state in the open as the ‘only solution’ to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
____________________________________________________________
I recommend reading the following:
In 1989 U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney Pushed to Create a PLO State!
Article from the Washington Times with introduction by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/fuller.htm
It is a reprint of an article, with a Jared Israel introduction, from The Washington Times with the following title: “Rand study urges birth of West Bank state” (November 8, 1989; Wednesday, Final Edition; Section: Part A; WORLD; Pg. A7; Byline: James M. Dorsey).
About this Washington Times article, it is important not to be distracted by the word “Rand”, in the title, which identifies this study as having been done by the Rand Corporation, a supposedly private think tank. In fact, Rand might as well be a government department. Just one example: Donald Rumsfeld, who was Secretary of Defense in the Ford administration, and now once again in George Bush Jr.’s administration, was chairman of Rand from 1981 to 1986. Simultaneously, during the years 1983-84, he was Ronald Reagan’s special envoy to the Middle East (and, by the way, Reagan carried out a consistently and radically antisemitic policy in the Middle East, for which see the 1981, 1982-83, 1985 and 1987-88 sections).[153]
About the particular Rand study that is our focus, the Washington Times article explains,
“Entitled ‘The West Bank of Israel: Point of No Return?’ and requested by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the study was compiled by Graham Fuller, senior Middle East analyst for the CIA during the Reagan administration.”
But the study was not merely requested by the Secretary of Defense and done by a CIA operative, it was also “sponsored by the Defense Department.” One guesses, therefore, that this study concluded what its sponsors wanted it to conclude. And what was that? The study “concluded that the Israeli-Arab conflict can only be resolved by creating a West Bank Palestinian state.”
And who is the Secretary of Defense who requested and sponsored this study? That would be Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, leader of the supposedly pro-Israel “neo-cons”, and now vice-president in Bush Jr.’s administration.
Keep that in mind.
Keep in mind also that, in 1967 (see 1967 section) a different study, done in-house at the same Defense Department, concluded that if Israel withdrew from the West Bank (a condition for creating a “West Bank Palestinian state”), Israel would be destroyed.
Is this a contradiction? The 1967 Defense Department study concluded that if Israel did not hold on to the West Bank it was in mortal danger, and the 1989 Defense Department study concluded that “the Israeli-Arab conflict can only be resolved by creating a West Bank Palestinian state.” But despite the appearance this is not necessarily a contradiction, because the quoted sentence from the 1989 study does not say “peacefully resolved.” The extermination of the Israeli Jews by the Arabs is one way to “resolve” the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Now, consider the Israeli reaction to this. The Washington Times article states:
“Released shortly before the expected mid-November arrival in Washington of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, the Rand Corp. report is certain to fuel already widespread Israeli fears that the Bush administration is attempting to lure Israel into talks with the Palestine Liberation Organization… Israel charges that discussion of Palestinian independence would constitute a mortal threat to the Jewish state.”
The Israelis thought that the American push for a Palestinian state was synonymous with a state run by the PLO, and in their opinion this would “constitute a mortal threat to the Jewish state.” Now, even if the Americans really thought that the Israeli assessment of the situation was in error, there was no question that this is how the Israelis felt about it. So the question is: Would an ally of Israel pursue a policy that Israel thought would lead to its destruction? Is that how an ally behaves?
Of course not. An ally would respect Israel’s wishes. And a neutral country would stay out of it. It takes an enemy to go out of one’s way to do things that Israel considers a mortal threat. After all, this had nothing to do with US “national security.”
But was the Israeli assessment of the situation – which agrees with the explicit conclusion of the 1967 US Defense Department study – unreasonable? No. Given that Palestinian Arab independence is synonymous with the Palestinian Arabs being ruled by the PLO, Israel was right about the threat posed by such independence. For you see, the PLO is not merely a terrorist organization, but one descended from Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution, the purpose of which was to kill every last living Jew. This Nazi heritage of the PLO is documented here:
“How did the ‘Palestinian movement’ emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”
by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm
Naturally, US Intelligence knows all about this, so when Graham Fuller from the CIA produced a report that “concluded that the Israeli-Arab conflict can only be resolved by creating a West Bank Palestinian state,” it cannot have had a peaceful resolution in mind, because what the US wanted was a PLO state.
The Washington Times says,
“‘…with the establishment of direct talks between the United States and the PLO, Israel now has, whether it wants them or not, indirect negotiations with the PLO,’ the study said.
…Mr. Fuller [author of the report] argued that ‘…the ultimate emergence of a Palestinian state on the West Bank [is] inevitable. . . No other solution any longer seems viable.'”
So the US established direct talks with the PLO, following which it concluded that it should give the worst antisemitic terrorists in the world their own state right next to Israel. Subsequently, the US would apply the strongest pressure on Israel to accept a ‘peace’ process leading to this outcome, as we shall see.
Is this the behavior of an ally?
@ honeybee:
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa who dat?