Tancredo would have us believe “al-Qaeda,” the database, has nukes and is itching to use them, and thus we should be ready to bomb and destroy religious sites and kill thousands of people, all of them quite innocent of any crime against Tancredo or the United States. Of course, “al-Qaeda,” the legend of scary campfire stories, does not have nukes and will not pull off a terrorist attack, nuclear or otherwise, unless it is politically advantageous for the neocons.
After presidential selectee hopeful and neocon psychopath Tom Tancredo once again suggested bombing Mecca and Medina as “the best way he can think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the US,” according to the International News, a Washington-based Islamic civil rights and advocacy group declared his threat “unworthy of anyone seeking public office in the United States.” In fact, as a psychopath, Tancredo has the required skillset for office, although as a one percenter at the bottom of the potential selectee heap he won’t be taking up residency at the White House.
“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said at a Family Table restaurant in Osceola, Iowa. “Because that’s the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do,” the Denver Post reports.
Tancredo would have us believe “al-Qaeda,” the database, has nukes and is itching to use them, and thus we should be ready to bomb and destroy religious sites and kill thousands of people, all of them quite innocent of any crime against Tancredo or the United States. Of course, “al-Qaeda,” the legend of scary campfire stories, does not have nukes and will not pull off a terrorist attack, nuclear or otherwise, unless it is politically advantageous for the neocons.
If we are to use Tancredo’s deranged logic, the Iraqis have the right to bomb Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Devil’s Lake, North Dakota, as the United States in essence has nuked Iraq. According to the World Uranium Weapons Conference held in Hamburg in October 2003, the “amount of DU used in Iraq in 2003 is equivalent to nearly 250,000 Nagasaki bombs,” as Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, former Chief of the Naval Staff, India, explained in 2004. As well, the people of Kosovo and Afghanistan have a right to indiscriminately slaughter Americans, following Tancredo’s murderous logic. “A British scientist says the Americans’ use of depleted uranium weapons in the war with Serbia is likely to cause 10,000 extra deaths from cancer,” the BBC reported in 1999, after Clinton attacked the former Yugoslavia. “Bulgarian researchers reported finding levels eight times higher than usual within Bulgaria itself, and up to 30 times higher in Yugoslavia.”
Leuren Moret, a former Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientist, writes:
Extensive carpet bombing, grid bombing, and the frequent use of missiles and depleted uranium bullets on buildings in densely populated areas has occurred in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. The discovery that bomb craters in Yugoslavia in 1999 were radioactive, and that an unexploded missile in 1999 contained a depleted uranium warhead, implies that the total amount of depleted uranium used since 1991 has been greatly underestimated. Of even greater concern, is that 100 per cent of the depleted uranium in bombs and missiles is aerosolized upon impact and immediately released into the atmosphere. This amount can be as much as 1.5 tons in the large bombs. In bullets and cannon shells, the amount aerosolized is 40-70 per cent, leaving pieces and unexploded shells in the environment, to provide new sources of radioactive dust and contamination of the groundwater from dissolved depleted uranium metal long after the battles are over, as reported in a 2003 report by the UN Environmental Program on Yugoslavia. Considering that the US has admitted using 34 tons of depleted uranium from bullets and cannon shells in Yugoslavia, and the fact that 35,000 NATO bombing missions occurred there in 1999, potentially the amount of depleted uranium contaminating Yugoslavia and transboundary drift into surrounding countries is staggering.
In short, millions of people, poisoned by the cancerous “transboundary drift” of DU, have the right to attack the 6th Congressional District of Colorado, where Tancredo “serves” as a neocon in the United States House of Corporate Whores, er Representatives.
Of course, Tancredo’s hate speech delivered at a Family Table restaurant in Osceola, Iowa, is part and parcel of the ongoing “clash of civilizations” agenda, although, as usual, Democrats and libs are clueless. “We. Are Not. At War. With Islam,” writes Bruce Feiler, New York Times-bestselling author, over at the Huffington Post. “Even George Bush has repeatedly stressed this distinction in our struggle with Islamic extremists. So here’s a challenge: How about every Republican candidate for president get asked in the coming days whether he agrees with Tom Tancredo: Should we consider bombing Muslim holy sites in response to an Islamic terrorist’s attack against us?”
Au contraire, Sparky. We. Are. At. War. With Islam, or rather the neocons are at “war” with Islam, although “war” is hardly a sufficient noun, as it is defined as a “state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties,” according to the American Heritage Dictionary. Islam and Islamic nations are not at war with Tancredo and his troupe of neocon psychopaths, although the neocons are at “war” with Islam, or more accurately the neocons are killing large numbers of Muslims, either directly in Iraq or elsewhere by proxy, and this is more akin to shooting fish in a barrel than a conventional war.
Libs need to get with it if we are going to stop this homicidal madness. Our “struggle” is not with “Islamic extremists,” in large created and unleashed by the CIA, ISI, and a potpourri of associated intelligence agencies and black ops, but rather with our psychotic rulers and their hired guns, determined to make way for a global slave plantation.
In the meantime, as the “election,” or decidership selection process dog and pony show, approaches, we can expect more such bloodthirsty proclamations, especially now that Barack Obama has offered himself up as rhetorical springboard, declaring Pakistan must be invaded, that is short of nuking captive populations. The Bilderberger Queen Clinton, on the other hand, has not refused “to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden or other terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” according to the CIA’s favorite newspaper, the Washington Post. Naturally, all of this is considered normal political discourse, hardly worth excoriation by the corporate media, never mind the flat-out criminal insanity of such a proposal, not long ago considered inconceivable but now a mainstream response to manufactured problems.
“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said at a Family Table restaurant in Osceola, Iowa. “Because that’s the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do,” the Denver Post reports.
Tancredo would have us believe “al-Qaeda,” the database, has nukes and is itching to use them, and thus we should be ready to bomb and destroy religious sites and kill thousands of people, all of them quite innocent of any crime against Tancredo or the United States. Of course, “al-Qaeda,” the legend of scary campfire stories, does not have nukes and will not pull off a terrorist attack, nuclear or otherwise, unless it is politically advantageous for the neocons.
If we are to use Tancredo’s deranged logic, the Iraqis have the right to bomb Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Devil’s Lake, North Dakota, as the United States in essence has nuked Iraq. According to the World Uranium Weapons Conference held in Hamburg in October 2003, the “amount of DU used in Iraq in 2003 is equivalent to nearly 250,000 Nagasaki bombs,” as Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, former Chief of the Naval Staff, India, explained in 2004. As well, the people of Kosovo and Afghanistan have a right to indiscriminately slaughter Americans, following Tancredo’s murderous logic. “A British scientist says the Americans’ use of depleted uranium weapons in the war with Serbia is likely to cause 10,000 extra deaths from cancer,” the BBC reported in 1999, after Clinton attacked the former Yugoslavia. “Bulgarian researchers reported finding levels eight times higher than usual within Bulgaria itself, and up to 30 times higher in Yugoslavia.”
Leuren Moret, a former Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientist, writes:
Extensive carpet bombing, grid bombing, and the frequent use of missiles and depleted uranium bullets on buildings in densely populated areas has occurred in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. The discovery that bomb craters in Yugoslavia in 1999 were radioactive, and that an unexploded missile in 1999 contained a depleted uranium warhead, implies that the total amount of depleted uranium used since 1991 has been greatly underestimated. Of even greater concern, is that 100 per cent of the depleted uranium in bombs and missiles is aerosolized upon impact and immediately released into the atmosphere. This amount can be as much as 1.5 tons in the large bombs. In bullets and cannon shells, the amount aerosolized is 40-70 per cent, leaving pieces and unexploded shells in the environment, to provide new sources of radioactive dust and contamination of the groundwater from dissolved depleted uranium metal long after the battles are over, as reported in a 2003 report by the UN Environmental Program on Yugoslavia. Considering that the US has admitted using 34 tons of depleted uranium from bullets and cannon shells in Yugoslavia, and the fact that 35,000 NATO bombing missions occurred there in 1999, potentially the amount of depleted uranium contaminating Yugoslavia and transboundary drift into surrounding countries is staggering.
In short, millions of people, poisoned by the cancerous “transboundary drift” of DU, have the right to attack the 6th Congressional District of Colorado, where Tancredo “serves” as a neocon in the United States House of Corporate Whores, er Representatives.
Of course, Tancredo’s hate speech delivered at a Family Table restaurant in Osceola, Iowa, is part and parcel of the ongoing “clash of civilizations” agenda, although, as usual, Democrats and libs are clueless. “We. Are Not. At War. With Islam,” writes Bruce Feiler, New York Times-bestselling author, over at the Huffington Post. “Even George Bush has repeatedly stressed this distinction in our struggle with Islamic extremists. So here’s a challenge: How about every Republican candidate for president get asked in the coming days whether he agrees with Tom Tancredo: Should we consider bombing Muslim holy sites in response to an Islamic terrorist’s attack against us?”
Au contraire, Sparky. We. Are. At. War. With Islam, or rather the neocons are at “war” with Islam, although “war” is hardly a sufficient noun, as it is defined as a “state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties,” according to the American Heritage Dictionary. Islam and Islamic nations are not at war with Tancredo and his troupe of neocon psychopaths, although the neocons are at “war” with Islam, or more accurately the neocons are killing large numbers of Muslims, either directly in Iraq or elsewhere by proxy, and this is more akin to shooting fish in a barrel than a conventional war.
Libs need to get with it if we are going to stop this homicidal madness. Our “struggle” is not with “Islamic extremists,” in large created and unleashed by the CIA, ISI, and a potpourri of associated intelligence agencies and black ops, but rather with our psychotic rulers and their hired guns, determined to make way for a global slave plantation.
In the meantime, as the “election,” or decidership selection process dog and pony show, approaches, we can expect more such bloodthirsty proclamations, especially now that Barack Obama has offered himself up as rhetorical springboard, declaring Pakistan must be invaded, that is short of nuking captive populations. The Bilderberger Queen Clinton, on the other hand, has not refused “to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden or other terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” according to the CIA’s favorite newspaper, the Washington Post. Naturally, all of this is considered normal political discourse, hardly worth excoriation by the corporate media, never mind the flat-out criminal insanity of such a proposal, not long ago considered inconceivable but now a mainstream response to manufactured problems.
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following comment
Kurt Nimmo
06.08.2007 07:59
fast freddie