Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Introducing: The Terrorists choice for President


Story: ""I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq," stated Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group. ...

"The Iraqi resistance is succeeding," stated Hamed. "Hillary and the Democrats call for withdrawal. Her popularity shows that the resistance is winning and that the occupation is losing. We just hope that she will go until the end and change the American policy, which is based on oppressing poor and innocent people."

The Brigades, together with the Islamic Jihad terrorist group, took responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past three years. The Brigades also has carried out hundreds of recent shootings and rocket attacks.

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by Clinton's calls for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq.

"It is clear that it is the resistance operations of the mujahideen that has brought about these calls for withdrawal," boasted Abu Ayman.

Nasser Abu Aziz, the West Bank deputy commander of the Al Aqsa Brigades, declared it is "very good" there are "voices like Hillary and others who are now attacking the Iraq invasion.""


This isn't surprising as a concept, that the terrorists would vastly prefer a Dovish Left Wing president over a Hawkish Right Wing president, but I didn't think they would say it.
Take what you will from this story, but not many people will hear about it, and as such, it will have very little impact on the election. Not that it shouldn't, but it won't.
Just remember, on top of all the Neo-Bolshevism she's been bandying around in recent months, she's also the islamo-nazi terrorists choice for Leader of the Free world.

(Picture, btw, is at Reagan's Funeral)
(Note: I refrained from posting this picture, which is somewhat disturbing in nature.)

3 comments:

SolaMeanie said...

I think the second picture is pretty good, actually!

Don't you think Jimmy Carter really helped set the Democratic template for responses to terrorism? He did nothing for 444 days and botched a rescue attempt. It took the Gipper to get the plunger out, and why? I think the Ayatollah suspected that Reagan would act severely once if office if the hostages weren't freed.

I do hope the American people aren't stupid enough to put her (or any other Dem) in the White House. However, my confidence is waning a bit.

Lillgw said...

I wish this was just a Clinton policy issue. At some point regardless who is the next president there will be a reduction in force (some propose more gradual than others) and unfortunately these responses from terrorist groups are inevitable. They are always going to promote withdrawal as retreat therefore victory. It is a "cost of business" in doing battle with them. Any action (or inaction) in that region will lead to more terrorist recruitment. True, the rapid removal of troops the Obama and Clinton are suggesting will likely have a more severe impact on the Iraqi population (especially the Shia Islam). It would be nice and easy if this were a purely partisan issue but we will face this beast matter who we elect.

Palm boy said...

Sola, I liked it too. :D

Carter certainally didn't help matters.

Lill, I pretty much agree. Still, it is significant that the quick withdrawl is the prefered method of terrorists.