Reader ST points out that it's telling how Chazza feels the need to place a disclaimer underneath his posts about Mark Foley ("please note, because I know someone’s going to try this tactic: this post should in no way be construed as a 'defense' of Rep. Foley, whose actions are completely inexcusable"), but felt no such need when it came to posting wild conspiracy theories about the war in Lebanon.
Yes, that's right: Johnson didn't say one single time thruout the conflict that 'the killing of children is completely inexcusable'. Presumably that's because to his mind it is - at least as long as those children are Muslims and/or Arabs.
1 comment:
..and you forgot to mention that if any children do live till their teens and young adulthood then they are only going to become terrorists and attack western interests in their own country. Johnson also knows clearly that all terrorist attacks against western interests whether it be in their own country or not is a responsive attack to win their freedom back from the invaders. Johnson and the alike don’t mind killings as long as Muslims are on the receiving end and assume they have no right over their freedom especially if its in the hands of the western world.
Any terrorist’s attacks after invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq are a responsive attacks resulting from the actions of the western world. A poll recently conducted in Australia suggested that majority of people believe that terror has increased since the war in Afghanistan and Iraq as opposed to Bush and Blair that it has reduced thus proving my point above.
Post a Comment