Dems Fume as Al Qaeda Cell Political Ties Revealed
Niemand Nirgendwo
reports identifying the five al Qaeda cell members arrested over
the weekend in Lackawanna, New York as registered Democrats.
Sunday's Buffalo News initially revealed the inconvenient
detail, noting first that "members of Lackawanna's Yemeni
community describe the five arrested men as 'all-American.'"
"They include a telemarketer, a used car salesman and a former
high school soccer star who was named friendliest in his class.
Four are married, and three have children. All are registered
voters — Democrats," announced USA Today on Monday, picking up
the News report.
News of the al Qaeda cell's political affiliation can only
exacerbate the party's already growing image as being soft on
terrorism. Monday morning, for instance, noting that the
Lackawanna five will be unable to go to the polls in the future,
WABC Radio's Curtis Sliwa joked, "There's five less votes for
Hillary Clinton."
Some Republicans see the "Al Qaeda were Democrats" reports as
poetic justice.
Over the years, Democratic Party spinmeisters and their liberal
media friends have repeatedly attempted to make hay over the
political ties of domestic terrorists like
Timothy McVeigh, whom President Clinton once tried to tie to
conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh.
Bobb
Niemand Nirgendwo <anon...@cotsebay.cotse.net> wrote in message
news:FPCK5R0W3751...@anonymous.poster...
> Democratic Party insiders are said to be furious over published
> reports identifying the five al Qaeda cell members arrested over
> the weekend in Lackawanna, New York as registered Democrats.
Let's not resort to petty, partisan arguments regarding these suspects. The
important thing is that they were apprehended. If they are true
anti-American terrorists, they are not concerned with whether they harm
Democrats or Republicans - they are after Americans of all stripes.
William A. Levinson
Niemand Nirgendwo wrote:
> Democratic Party insiders are said to be furious over published
> reports identifying the five al Qaeda cell members arrested over
> the weekend in Lackawanna, New York as registered Democrats.
>
> Sunday's Buffalo News initially revealed the inconvenient
> detail, noting first that "members of Lackawanna's Yemeni
> community describe the five arrested men as 'all-American.'"
>
> "They include a telemarketer, a used car salesman
Two forms of obvious scum.
> and a former
> high school soccer star who was named friendliest in his class.
> Four are married, and three have children. All are registered
> voters — Democrats," announced USA Today on Monday, picking up
> the News report.
>
> News of the al Qaeda cell's political affiliation can only
> exacerbate the party's already growing image as being soft on
> terrorism. Monday morning, for instance, noting that the
> Lackawanna five will be unable to go to the polls in the future,
> WABC Radio's Curtis Sliwa joked, "There's five less votes for
> Hillary Clinton."
Yes, five less votes for Hillary Arafat Clinton.
> Some Republicans see the "Al Qaeda were Democrats" reports as
> poetic justice.
I dislike Al Qaida even more than I dislike most Democrook politicians,
but not by much. ;-)
http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/letsroll.html USA: Let's roll
--Bill
http://www.omdurman.org/whitslav.html
http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/whiteslv.html (free downloadable
leaflet) Saudi Arabia holds three female American citizens in white
slavery.
http://www.stentorian.com/riaa/ Stop RIAA from searching your computer
(with the government's consent)
Joel Rubin
<anon...@cotsebay.cotse.net> wrote:
>Democratic Party insiders are said to be furious over published
>reports identifying the five al Qaeda cell members arrested over
>the weekend in Lackawanna, New York as registered Democrats.
>
If they are Al Qaeda terrorists then their choice of party is just
part of their camoflage coloring and not any comment on their
ideology. Besides which I bet in Lackawana, NY, most of the time, the
Democratic primary is the only one worth voting in and a lot of people
who might vote for one party in the general election are registered
with the other party for that reason.
Bobb
Hawgied N. Kamakura <hn...@kentia.org> wrote in message
news:cj2fou0e34gvsf6mr...@4ko.com...
>
> And then you could be full of shit. One need only think about who it
> is that constantly criticizes America to determine that there is
> sufficient reason for terrorist to be affiliated with the democraps.
> Their anti-American sentiments fit right in with being a leftist
> liberal.
Do you think for a second that a true terrorist cares if the Americans he
goes after are Democrats or Republicans? This is just partisan nonsense and
an excuse to rail on one party or the other. The Dems did this with
McVeigh; and it's garbage in this case too. 'Nuff said.
Bobb
Joel Rubin <jmr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:i5aeouk062j21eull...@4ax.com...
> If they are Al Qaeda terrorists then their choice of party is just
> part of their camoflage coloring and not any comment on their
> ideology. Besides which I bet in Lackawana, NY, most of the time, the
> Democratic primary is the only one worth voting in and a lot of people
> who might vote for one party in the general election are registered
> with the other party for that reason.
Your explanation makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, I don't suppose that
jingoistic Republicans will be open to the idea. Cheers.
Merlin Dorfman
: On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 09:09:03 -0400, Joel Rubin <jmr...@ix.netcom.com>
: wrote:
: >On 16 Sep 2002 14:52:28 -0000, Niemand Nirgendwo
: And then you could be full of shit. One need only think about who it
: is that constantly criticizes America to determine that there is
: sufficient reason for terrorist to be affiliated with the democraps.
: Their anti-American sentiments fit right in with being a leftist
: liberal.
Got that, everybody? Democrat=terrorist. Criticize America=
terrorist. (No Republicans EVER criticize America.) We really need
to be worried; since Al Gore got more votes than George W. Bush,
there must be more citizen-terrorists in the US than "true patriots"
(Republicans).
Bobb
> You actually think the partisian politics that the liberal left
> constantly employs against Bush and his efforts to go after the
> terrorist doesn't play into the hands of those very same terrorist?
The answer is no. I don't think that criticizing the President "plays into
the hands" of terrorists. To criticize the President, any President, is
part of American politics. But when one associates a political party like
the Dems or Repubs with criminals or terrorists, then partisanship becomes
absurd. On 9/11/01, a lot of Dems, Repubs, conservatives, liberals, and
others lost their lives and the hijackers didn't discriminate. Does it
really matter what political party these hijackers were registered under, if
they were registered somewhere at all? I think the answer is obvious.
Eric Dew
Hawgied N. Kamakura <hn...@kentia.org> wrote:
>constantly employs against Bush and his efforts to go after the
>terrorist doesn't play into the hands of those very same terrorist?
>
is constantly playing partisan politics against Bush. From what I've
seen, the liberal left is lying down like a lamb to slaughter at the
foot of Bush.
I think terrorists actually prefer a good antagonist, as it makes their
convictions more compelling in their mind.
Having protagonists on the "other" side makes their case a bit weaker
as it muddies the black vs white view they have of the world.
EDEW
Bobb
Eric Dew <ed...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:amggi5$t44$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
> I might agree with you if there is any evidence that the "liberal" left
> is constantly playing partisan politics against Bush. From what I've
> seen, the liberal left is lying down like a lamb to slaughter at the
> foot of Bush.
>
> I think terrorists actually prefer a good antagonist, as it makes their
> convictions more compelling in their mind.
>
> Having protagonists on the "other" side makes their case a bit weaker
> as it muddies the black vs white view they have of the world.
These are some great points. And how is objecting to the President having
his way with everything "partisian politics." People of all political
persuasions, for example, question the validity of military action vs. Iraq.
Is that "partisan politics?" Is the President a dictator or something? Do
people not have the right to question?
Merlin Dorfman
: On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:03:27 GMT, "Bobb" <rm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
: >
: >Hawgied N. Kamakura <hn...@kentia.org> wrote in message
: You actually think the partisian politics that the liberal left
: constantly employs against Bush and his efforts to go after the
: terrorist doesn't play into the hands of those very same terrorist?
Not nearly as much as Ashcroft and his demolition of civil
rights plays into terrorist hands.
Do you think partisan Republican criticism of Bill Clinton
was unpatriotic? Of course not, undercutting Clinton was a
Holy Mission, right?
Merlin Dorfman
: On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:01:28 GMT, "Bobb" <rm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
: >
: >Eric Dew <ed...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
: Hey Bobb -- Bobb up and kiss my ass, won't you...You anti-American
: traitorous scum! Your ass sucks bilge water!
You forgot, Bobb--criticizing Bush is not only unpatriotic, it
plays into the hands of terrorists. And you are probably a
terrorist yourself. I hope you'll keep that in mind when Ashcroft
comes to haul you away.
Merlin Dorfman
: On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 21:02:40 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman
: <dor...@rahul.net> wrote:
: >: You actually think the partisian politics that the liberal left
: >: constantly employs against Bush and his efforts to go after the
: >: terrorist doesn't play into the hands of those very same terrorist?
: >
: > Not nearly as much as Ashcroft and his demolition of civil
: >rights plays into terrorist hands.
: > Do you think partisan Republican criticism of Bill Clinton
: >was unpatriotic? Of course not, undercutting Clinton was a
: >Holy Mission, right?
: Clinton was a buffoon who's presidency was a laughing stock of errors.
: He was and remains a backwoods, stump-humping redneck. The most
: critical event of his whole term was when the next blow job was going
: to come down.
You don't lke Bill Clinton so undercutting him was a holy
mission. You like George W. Bush so any opposition to him is
unpatriotic. Pardon me while I ignore you.
: Had there been anything resembling an armed conflict
: with another country he would probably have resigned out of fear.
I guess this is your variation on why eight years of
peace and prosperity were bad.
Bobb
<Hawgied N. Kamakura> wrote in message
news:b0jpou42hkm6f6stf...@4ko.com...
having
> >his way with everything "partisian politics." People of all political
> >persuasions, for example, question the validity of military action vs.
Iraq.
> >Is that "partisan politics?" Is the President a dictator or something?
Do
> >people not have the right to question?
>
>
>
> traitorous scum! Your ass sucks bilge water!
I find it interesting how incapable you are of answering simple questions.
Instead, you resort to insults and ad hominem. What you fail to understand
is that your insults can't anger me, only I can anger me. So this is a
little lesson for you - your baseless insults are useless. They fail to
convince me that your "point of view" (ha) is valid. So you will continue
to fume there behind your computer as long as you fail to reason. Cheers.
Bobb
Merlin Dorfman <dor...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:amimvu$71u$1...@blue.rahul.net...
You blew my cover, Merlin ;-).
Bobb
> How simple your world must be...you are proof that ignorance is bliss.
It is your world (and your mind for that matter) that is simple, my friend.
Cheers.
Bobb
> hn...@kentia.org (HawgiedN.Kamakura) wrote:
> You don't lke Bill Clinton so undercutting him was a holy
> mission. You like George W. Bush so any opposition to him is
> unpatriotic. Pardon me while I ignore you.
I agree. I think your job is done here, Merlin. You have attempted
reasoned replies in response to ignorance. Now it's time to "trim the fat"
and move on. I guess some people are just really that incapable of reason.
> I guess this is your variation on why eight years of
> peace and prosperity were bad.
I'm not sure this character knows the meaning of the words "peace" or
"prosperity."
Hawgied N. Kamakura
Ah! What a rapier like retort! You have a way with words, don't you,
Jethro?
Bobb
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
-President Teddy Roosevelt
rms1
Of course, this probably doesn't mean anything to that idiot Hawageid.
rms1
> is that constantly criticizes America to determine that there is
> sufficient reason for terrorist to be affiliated with the democraps.
> Their anti-American sentiments fit right in with being a leftist
> liberal.
Hawgied, you may not really be an idiot. But based on your comments,
you do fit the profile.