Comments on: Infamous Taliban Leader Killed In Pakistan
Mullah Ismail Revered By Militants For Shooting Down U.S. Chinook In 2005, Killing 16 Special Forces
Add a Comment See all 88 Comments
- BM6005: Step back and take a breath. I realize that Hitler was into National Socialism & was fine with the Libs while he & Stalin were buddies. It was Japan not Germany that attacked Pearl Harbon. But reasoned words with a person who is so in favor of limited nuclear war is a waste of effort.
- Reply to this comment
- "It should be obvious that liberals hate facist fanatical religous groups "
First - liberals ARE a fascist fanatical group - just try disagreeing with them some time - or as they would say, ''hating''...
And yes, liberals DO hate Christians - And many hate Israeli Jews - that much they''ve repeatedly made obvious...
Can''t say as I''ve heard them come out against Muslims much - heaven''s no - that''d be BIGOTRY - that''d be ''hate''...
In fact, I''d say liberals are member of the godless church of liberalism - it''s a dogma, a cult if you will... and it''s every bit as dangerous as radical Islam with whom they have allied themselves in a fight against Bush...
Liberals - supporting our nation''s enemies since 1948 - Reply to this comment
- AaaBee said, "And would we have had to fix Iraq, if we hadn''''t gone in?"
No...but we''d probably be fixing Chicago and Los Angeles once Al Qaida realized we had no spine to take the fight to them. - Reply to this comment
- To bm6006: At what grade level would you put your post.
Posted by downsteamjim
Still higher than yours. MSEE BTW! Just tired of your assumptions. Let''s see Ronnie the R etard refused to go after the bombers of the Marine barracks so by your definition he''s an enemy apologist. I wanted to go after the b astards. I would have blown up every terrorist camp in the ME on 9/12 with low yield thermonuclear devices. I don''t believe in attacking those however that did not attack us (Iraq). We have matched Hitler''s march into Poland in ''39 for preemptive BS. A course I might add that was advocated by a group of DRAFT DODGERS from Viet Nam (Iraq)!!! - Reply to this comment
- To bm6006: At what grade level would you put your post.
- Reply to this comment
- STUPID TALIBAN,what were they thinking? they must have had a brain *** or something.They really think there won''t be mandatory retaliation for this.Air strikes out the wazoo,and then comes death from all angles.Better crawl back into your cave and stay their you bunch of nemrods.
- Reply to this comment
- All libs are not pacifists. Good point bm6005......
Posted by downsteamjim
You know what happens when you''re downstream MORON? Hang tight, I''m sending you a BM now! Another one of you super patriots shooting off your worthless mouth!!! - Reply to this comment
- He only made things worse for himself ,and his comrades.He is dead,soon many of his comrades will be.We don''t take lightly loosing an elite unit,they are very well trained and expensive to maintain.They will track down all involved and they will meet the reaper,if they haven''t already.
- Reply to this comment
- All libs are not pacifists. Good point bm6005. Many support Hamas & ages ago many supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Mao and his cultural revolution, Stalin and his cleansing efforts.
- Reply to this comment
- I believe it because it is patently obvious that liberals would gladly, eagerly - yes desperately yearn for ANY setback for the United States while a Republican occupies the White House -....
Posted by dogsoul
Sorry but we just followed your examples. You dipshits are still dissing FDR. - Reply to this comment
- AaaBee
You know I used to feel like you but after the super patriots (sans service themselves) have been bashing us libs like during Nam I''ve cut the cord and lost all civility in dealing with these as sholes. In fact I have a collection of ammo engraved with all the a holes names . I don''t believe we can fix what georgie boy f*k''d up. I believe we''re headed for a second revolution and the conservatives are in for a surprise. All liberals are not pacifists! - Reply to this comment
- In fact, just observe whenever any good news or progress gets reported (a rarity from the liberal mass media) - you can literally see, read & feel liberals start to squirm.... they LOATHE any success against this nation''''s enemies while it can in any way be attributed to conservative lead efforts...
Posted by dogsoul
Strangely enough I seldom see any lib downplaying events such as this other than in your fantasy mind. You''ve NEVER seen me not celebrating another terrorist biting bthe dust. So take your self righteous c rap and stuff it. Noh, nah, nah,...I''m more patriotic than you!! - Reply to this comment
- That opens up a slot for another speaker at the Democrat convention in Denver.
- Reply to this comment
- "The sad thing is that dog''''s hole probably really believes this. Every American is against terrorism"
I believe it because it is patently obvious that liberals would gladly, eagerly - yes desperately yearn for ANY setback for the United States while a Republican occupies the White House - whether that be a successful terrorist attack or an economic downturn - so that they can use it as leverage against the opposition party...
In fact, just observe whenever any good news or progress gets reported (a rarity from the liberal mass media) - you can literally see, read & feel liberals start to squirm.... they LOATHE any success against this nation''s enemies while it can in any way be attributed to conservative lead efforts...
That is why liberals are traitors to this great nation - who they have backstabbed at every opportunity since the late 1940s...
Liberals - lending support to America''s enemies since 1948 - Reply to this comment
- bm6005, I''''m sure the bm stands for bowel movenment.
Actually for once you''re correct. In fact I just had one in your honor and I named it noclue!! Perhaps you''re correct tho, try posting something yourself other than your blather regarding your super patriotism! - Reply to this comment
- NOCH ONE MORE UP FOR THE ROVIAN MATH STRAIGHT FROM CRAWFORD TEXAS....
YEEEEEE HAAAAAAA!!!!
GIVE ME 2 MORE POINTS ON MY APROVAL RATEING...
HANG IN THEIR CHIMP YOU HAVE SUCCEEDED IN PUSHING THIS MESS OFF ON ANOTHER ADMINISTRATION!
AMERICA STAND UP OR SHUT UP!
START WAR CRIMES TRIALS NOW! - Reply to this comment
- New Orleans is part of the US, Iraq isn''''t.
Posted by newsjunky5 at 04:28 PM : Apr 16, 2008
My point is, Iraq is the size of California; naturally, if you are going to rebuild a country, it will cost more than a city.
Lousiana and New Orleans, three years later, should be the ones blamed for not rebuilding, or at least deciding what they will and what they will not rebuild of the city. - Reply to this comment
- And would we have had to fix Iraq, if we hadn''t gone in?
- Reply to this comment
- "the fact that we have spent more US taxpayer dollars on reconstructing Iraq than New Orleans.
Posted by AaaBee at 03:33 PM : Apr 16, 2008
Iraq is a country, New Orleans is a city.
Another thing, New Orleans is in a "flood zone", it is againist the FEMA regulations to use government money to rebuild in a flood zone. "
---------------------------
New Orleans is part of the US, Iraq isn''t. - Reply to this comment
- AAbee, I respectfully agree.
- Reply to this comment
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
