- Registriert
- 22 Dez 2016
- Zuletzt online:
- Beiträge
- 611
- Punkte Reaktionen
- 0
- Punkte
- 0
- Geschlecht
Die liberale Linke erzählt uns jedes mal, dass man islamischen Terrorismus ignorieren soll. Sie sagen Gegenschläge erzeugen nur mehr Terrorismus und dass die Terroristen wollen, dass wir in den Kampf ziehen.
James Mitchell ist ein CIA Mitarbeiter, der geholfen hat islamische Terroristen zu zerbrechen. Er hat den Planer hinter den 911 Angriffen "interviewed":
"
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265006/911-mastermind-reveals-trumps-plan-fight-daniel-greenfield
Was die USA vor weiteren verheerenden Terror Attacken bewahrt hat war schlicht und ergreifend, dass Bush ohne Gnade Afghanistan in Schutt und Asche gebombt und Terroristen getötet hat.
Mitchell sagt weiterhin, dass man islamischen Terrorismus nur besiegt, wenn man die Gesellschaft, diese Subjekte erzeugt bezahlen lässt. Er sagt es reicht nicht aus die Terroristen zu töten.
Mitchell sagt für jeden islamischen Angriff muss die Bevölkerung des Staates zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden, die den Terroristen erzeugt hat. Sie muss ohne Gnade bestraft werden. Alles woran sie glaubt, ihre Werte, Religion und Hoffnung muss in den Dreck geworfen werden. Nicht nur der Terrorist, sondern sein gesamtes Umfeld. Mitchell argumentiert, dass der Terrorist nur die Frucht, dessen Gesellschaft aber der Baum des Übels ist.
Mitchell ist Berater von Trump und trump sagte in seiner Rede gestern, dass er islamischen Terrorismus ausmerzen wird. Er will auch Muslimen die Einreise in die USA verweigern.
Das wird extrem interessant werden, da Europa durch seine enge Anbindung an die USA zwangsläufig auf die selbe Schiene gezogen wird. Merkel und ihre Lakaien sind sicher nur wenig darauf vorbereitet. Ich frage mich nur, ob sie ihre 180° Wende dann überhaupt noch erklärt oder einfach macht wie befohlen?
James Mitchell ist ein CIA Mitarbeiter, der geholfen hat islamische Terroristen zu zerbrechen. Er hat den Planer hinter den 911 Angriffen "interviewed":
"
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, revealed that Al Qaeda shared the leftist panic and disaster over Bush’s “cowboy” approach to fighting terrorists. The United States had backed down from Islamic terrorists so many times that they had come to take our defeatism for granted. Al Qaeda didn’t have a masterful plan to lure us into Afghanistan, as the left liked to insist, instead it expected President Bush to follow in Clinton’s footsteps by delivering an empty speech and then writing it off as a law enforcement problem. Much as Obama had done with Benghazi.
It wasn’t expecting the roar of jets over Kandahar.
“How was I supposed to know that cowboy George Bush would announce he wanted us ‘dead or alive’ and then invade Afghanistan to hunt us down?’’ Khalid Sheikh Mohammed whined.
“KSM explained that if the United States had treated 9/11 like a law enforcement matter, he would have had time to launch a second wave of attacks”, but instead Al Qaeda and its plans for the next wave of attacks were crushed “by the ferocity and swiftness of George W. Bush’s response.”
Like Saddam’s WMDs, the left has made great sport of the lack of major follow-up attacks by Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda couldn’t follow up because it was under too much pressure. Unsurprisingly, killing terrorists actually worked. Unknown numbers of American lives were saved because President Bush believed that killing terrorists was more effective than appeasing them.
The left had always insisted on treating 9/11 as a law enforcement matter. That is why Obama aggressively pushed to move Islamic terrorists into criminal courts. Even his Osama bin Laden bid was only an effort to capture the top Al Qaeda terrorist so that he could put him on trial in a criminal court.
“My belief was if we had captured him, that I would be in a pretty strong position, politically, here, to argue that displaying due process and rule of law would be our best weapon against al-Qaeda,” Obama had argued, showcasing a typical counterintuitive narrative myth.
Osama’s death proved to be a lucky political break for Obama, but he hadn’t been trying to fight terror. Instead he was working to appease it.
Various counterintuitive narratives were invoked in defense of this bad policy, including the “Playing into their hands” myth. But now we know that it was leftists who were playing into Al Qaeda’s hands.
The mastermind of 9/11 wanted us to send the cops after Al Qaeda. He wasn’t looking to dance with an A-10. And had Bill Clinton turned over the White House to Al Gore instead of George W. Bush, 9/11 would have been far more devastating as the opening round of a series of major Islamic terror attacks.
Another great counterintuitive myth is that Islamic immigration, which provides fertile recruiting ground for foreign terror groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS to pursue their Jihad on America using operatives already embedded in the country, is actually the best way to fight Islamic terrorism.
When Trump called for a ban on Muslim migration, counterintuitive narratives were deployed that accused him, once again, of playing into the hands of ISIS and Al Qaeda. Islamic immigration, the counterintuitive myth claimed, disproved the claims of Islamic terrorists about America. The more Muslim migrants we took in, the more Muslims would come to love us and reject Islamic terrorism.
But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed revealed that he did not oppose Islamic immigration. He viewed it as the certain way for Muslims to defeat America and the free world. Islamic terrorism was a short range gamble. The “moonshot” of Islamic conquest wasn’t terrorism, it was Muslim migration to the West.
And even in the short term, Islamic terror was still enabled by Islamic immigration.
"Jihadi-minded brothers would immigrate into the United States” and “wrap themselves in America’s rights and laws’ while continuing their attacks,” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted.
While the counterintuitive narrative deeply embedded in CVE insists that Islamist “civil rights” groups like CAIR are our best “partners” in fighting Islamic terrorism and that extending every possible legal protection to Islamic terrorists will help discredit them, Mohammed saw Islamic migration and the whole Islamist civil rights scam enabled by the radicals at the ACLU and elsewhere, as cover for Islamic terrorism.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265006/911-mastermind-reveals-trumps-plan-fight-daniel-greenfield
Was die USA vor weiteren verheerenden Terror Attacken bewahrt hat war schlicht und ergreifend, dass Bush ohne Gnade Afghanistan in Schutt und Asche gebombt und Terroristen getötet hat.
Mitchell sagt weiterhin, dass man islamischen Terrorismus nur besiegt, wenn man die Gesellschaft, diese Subjekte erzeugt bezahlen lässt. Er sagt es reicht nicht aus die Terroristen zu töten.
you won't beat Islamic radicalism and its natural growth terrorism without making the populaces that spawn them pay. Fools can natter on about international law until a Yemeni murder-boy carves their faces off with piano wire. As long as you have whole populaces as "safe spaces" for terrorism in any countries, civilian populaces free to breed and raise more of them in calm and peace, where no one BUT the young males pay a high price for Islamic terrorism, this will continue to threaten us and might one day beat us.
Mitchell sagt für jeden islamischen Angriff muss die Bevölkerung des Staates zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden, die den Terroristen erzeugt hat. Sie muss ohne Gnade bestraft werden. Alles woran sie glaubt, ihre Werte, Religion und Hoffnung muss in den Dreck geworfen werden. Nicht nur der Terrorist, sondern sein gesamtes Umfeld. Mitchell argumentiert, dass der Terrorist nur die Frucht, dessen Gesellschaft aber der Baum des Übels ist.
Mitchell ist Berater von Trump und trump sagte in seiner Rede gestern, dass er islamischen Terrorismus ausmerzen wird. Er will auch Muslimen die Einreise in die USA verweigern.
Das wird extrem interessant werden, da Europa durch seine enge Anbindung an die USA zwangsläufig auf die selbe Schiene gezogen wird. Merkel und ihre Lakaien sind sicher nur wenig darauf vorbereitet. Ich frage mich nur, ob sie ihre 180° Wende dann überhaupt noch erklärt oder einfach macht wie befohlen?