reporting the reporters
Al Jazeera (The Nazi Channel), Presenter Riz Khan said: "It's quite amazing how Mumbai is falling apart. It's a shame that the fire is going to cause serious damage to a major landmark in the city." During three days of continuous reporting on Al Jazeera, the station's presenters studiously avoided the use of the word "terrorist" relying instead on the word "attackers" or occasionally "gunmen."
Heelers Memo to Riz Khan: It's not appropriate to criticise a city or its administration when Muslim terrorists, are slaughtering people in the streets. The shame was the destruction of people not buildings. My assessment of Al Jazeera is that it is effectively a propaganda wing for Al Qaeda.
Bloomberg Television, a presenter told viewers: "It is unlikely the Mumbai attacks are linked to Al Qaeda. We must consider the possible role of the Indian Mujahideen."
Heelers Memo to Mike Bloomberg: Apparently Bloomberg Television's analysis of terrorism is about as useful as its financial analysis. Here is the news. Al Qaeda just attacked Bombay. No mystery. No difficulty saying who it was. All quite clear then.
Sky News jointly broadcasting with CBS, a presenter said: "The attacks on Mumbai bear some frightening hallmarks of Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda has not been known in the past for taking hostages and engaging in stand off situations with the police."
Heelers Memo to Sky: Well duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. You seem to have forgotten about the Al Qaeda attacks on Russia. At Beslan, if you remember, Al Qaeda agents took over a school. They held a thousand children and teachers hostage. Russian special forces ended the STAND OFF by killing all the terrorists. They rescued most of the children. The Muslim Al Qaeda terrorist cowards killed 300 of the children. But the Russians saved 700 children who were due to be massacred. Of course Sky referred to the Russian commando operation as a "botched" job. Funny that. Why it was almost as if Sky was trying to help Al Qaeda and put the elected government of Russia under pressure. We should also consider the Al Qaeda attack on Moscow when Muslim terrorist cowards took over a theatre called Nord Ost. Russian commandos heroically retook the theatre. All the Muslim terrorists were killed in the rescue operation. Some hostages also died. But the terrorists had been ready to kill all the hostages. They didn't even get close to accomplishing this aim because of the Russian commandos' decisive intervention. This was another defeat for Al Qaeda which Sky chose to classify as a "botched" rescue. Really there's no pleasing you people. Here is the news. When Al Qaeda attacks someone you should support whoever it is they have attacked. You should not put the security forces of the victims' country on trial. Now Al Qaeda have once more attacked Bombay. There is something distinctly opprobrious about news stations such as Sky which consistently ignore Al Qaeda actions, or which refuse to report Al Qaeda terror at all, or which pretend that there's some inscrutable mystery about when an Al Qaeda terror attack is a realio trulio Al Qaeda terror attack. You are giving succour to the Jihadi's.
Euronews, presenter: "A hitherto little known group has claimed responsibility for the attacks on Mumbai."
Heelers Memo to Euronews: The group is called Al Qaeda. Actually they're quite well known down our way.
Russia Today, presenter: "The attacks are similar to those which took place in Moscow and Beslan."
Heelers Memo to Russia Today: You guys did an okay job on this one.
CNN, presenter: "Westerners think that this is part of a global phenomenon but India has any number of groups engaged in struggle."
CNN presenter Christiane Amanpour: "Nobody really knows who is responsible for the attacks on Mumbai."
CNN presenter Wolf Blitzer: "It's possible that the attackers received training from Al Qaeda."
Heelers Memo to CNN: During the attack on Bombay, your presenters almost couldn't bear to mention Al Qaeda in case that would once more demonstrate clearly quite how abysmally dishonorable CNN itself had been in its efforts to discredit President Bush's strong stand in the War On Terror. Your presenters continually spoke as if there was some arcane complexity involved in establishing who was committing the murders in Bombay. Your deliberate obfuscation of what was clearly an Al Qaeda attack amounts in itself to a criminal manipulation of the news. So no change there, eh CNN? Hey. Maybe you appeasers of terrorism actually owe President Bush an apology for the past seven years of defeatism, mistrepresentation and lies. Have you thought about that CNN?
Heelers Memo to Riz Khan: It's not appropriate to criticise a city or its administration when Muslim terrorists, are slaughtering people in the streets. The shame was the destruction of people not buildings. My assessment of Al Jazeera is that it is effectively a propaganda wing for Al Qaeda.
Bloomberg Television, a presenter told viewers: "It is unlikely the Mumbai attacks are linked to Al Qaeda. We must consider the possible role of the Indian Mujahideen."
Heelers Memo to Mike Bloomberg: Apparently Bloomberg Television's analysis of terrorism is about as useful as its financial analysis. Here is the news. Al Qaeda just attacked Bombay. No mystery. No difficulty saying who it was. All quite clear then.
Sky News jointly broadcasting with CBS, a presenter said: "The attacks on Mumbai bear some frightening hallmarks of Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda has not been known in the past for taking hostages and engaging in stand off situations with the police."
Heelers Memo to Sky: Well duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. You seem to have forgotten about the Al Qaeda attacks on Russia. At Beslan, if you remember, Al Qaeda agents took over a school. They held a thousand children and teachers hostage. Russian special forces ended the STAND OFF by killing all the terrorists. They rescued most of the children. The Muslim Al Qaeda terrorist cowards killed 300 of the children. But the Russians saved 700 children who were due to be massacred. Of course Sky referred to the Russian commando operation as a "botched" job. Funny that. Why it was almost as if Sky was trying to help Al Qaeda and put the elected government of Russia under pressure. We should also consider the Al Qaeda attack on Moscow when Muslim terrorist cowards took over a theatre called Nord Ost. Russian commandos heroically retook the theatre. All the Muslim terrorists were killed in the rescue operation. Some hostages also died. But the terrorists had been ready to kill all the hostages. They didn't even get close to accomplishing this aim because of the Russian commandos' decisive intervention. This was another defeat for Al Qaeda which Sky chose to classify as a "botched" rescue. Really there's no pleasing you people. Here is the news. When Al Qaeda attacks someone you should support whoever it is they have attacked. You should not put the security forces of the victims' country on trial. Now Al Qaeda have once more attacked Bombay. There is something distinctly opprobrious about news stations such as Sky which consistently ignore Al Qaeda actions, or which refuse to report Al Qaeda terror at all, or which pretend that there's some inscrutable mystery about when an Al Qaeda terror attack is a realio trulio Al Qaeda terror attack. You are giving succour to the Jihadi's.
Euronews, presenter: "A hitherto little known group has claimed responsibility for the attacks on Mumbai."
Heelers Memo to Euronews: The group is called Al Qaeda. Actually they're quite well known down our way.
Russia Today, presenter: "The attacks are similar to those which took place in Moscow and Beslan."
Heelers Memo to Russia Today: You guys did an okay job on this one.
CNN, presenter: "Westerners think that this is part of a global phenomenon but India has any number of groups engaged in struggle."
CNN presenter Christiane Amanpour: "Nobody really knows who is responsible for the attacks on Mumbai."
CNN presenter Wolf Blitzer: "It's possible that the attackers received training from Al Qaeda."
Heelers Memo to CNN: During the attack on Bombay, your presenters almost couldn't bear to mention Al Qaeda in case that would once more demonstrate clearly quite how abysmally dishonorable CNN itself had been in its efforts to discredit President Bush's strong stand in the War On Terror. Your presenters continually spoke as if there was some arcane complexity involved in establishing who was committing the murders in Bombay. Your deliberate obfuscation of what was clearly an Al Qaeda attack amounts in itself to a criminal manipulation of the news. So no change there, eh CNN? Hey. Maybe you appeasers of terrorism actually owe President Bush an apology for the past seven years of defeatism, mistrepresentation and lies. Have you thought about that CNN?
posted by heelers | 3:55 PM
9 Comments:
Whether the attacks were perpetrated by Al Qaeda or not seems beside the point. What is of the uppermost significance is the fact that the slaughter in Mumbai was carried out in full accordance with the "divine" injunctions to kill or enslave the "kuffar", or infidels, that are contained in the Mohammedans' "holy" book, The Qu'ran. There are no fewer than 109 verses in The Qu'ran that specifically command those who submit to Allah to make war against the infidels until the entire world has been subdued, e.g.
Sura 8: 12 When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
Sura 9: 5 So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.
Sura 9: 29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Mohammed's "divine" mission, as he himself said, as recorded by the Hadiths, was to instil terror in the infidels until they were cast into subjection:
Sahih Bukahri, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220: Narrated Abu Huraira: "Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)"
The "war on terror" and the obsession with Al Qaeda, as if the organisation were some kind of perversion of what Mohammedans really believe, distract attention from the real enemy: the diabolical doctrines recorded in The Qu'ran and the Hadiths, which are the foundation of the abominable corpus of laws that is Shari'ah, a system the nations of the OIC and, alas, many of the Muslims living in our midst would impose, by terror or by stealth, upon the rest of the world.
Hey Mr Pochechuyev.
My analysis is that Al Qaeda represents a more serious threat to the world than the Nazis did in 1939; a greater threat than atheistic Russian and Chinese communist expansionism did from 1917 up to the present day; and a greater threat than Western atheistic capitalism does today.
I say specifically the threat is Al Qaeda, and that all Muslim terror attacks on Russia, Asia and the West, are part of the Al Qaeda conspiracy against humanity.
If I'm wrong about this I'm wrong about everything.
This is my view and I do not conceal it.
Again.
The threat to the world comes from Al Qaeda.
From nowhere and from nothing else.
Yes Al Qaeda-ism is a dysfunction in Muslim culture in the same way that fascism, communism and atheistic capitalism are dysfunctions in ours.
It is only a general Muslim problem in the sense that Nazism was a general German problem. Or that Communism was a general Russian problem. Or that atheistic capitalism is a general western problem.
My analysis Mr Pochechuyev is that Al Qaeda must not be allowed to hide in plain sight. It must not be allowed to function within the free world. It must not be allowed to organise outside of the free world.
If I'm correct, the refusal by our media groups to recognise Al Qaeda as a threat to civilisation, continues to strengthen the hand of that same Al Qaeda.
Hence today's ranting from your my good self.
Be at peace.
Even in this time of war.
James Healy
To All My Readers.
My personal favourite among Qu'ran quotations is the Cow Sura which was recently used by an Islamist to threaten my life.
To wit:
"Allah gives life to the stones. And Allah takes life away from the stones."
That one's a doozy.
The Qu'ran also contains a magnificent call to brotherhood, completely in harmony with the Talmud and the Bible along the lines of: "He who takes one life, kills the world. He who saves one life, saves the world."
We are called to brotherhood.
All of us.
And I who say this to you gentle readers, am one who believes Al Qaeda must be fought to its destruction.
James
The "magnificent call to brotherhood", which is in the Qu'ran, Surah 5:32, in fact applies only to Muslims, not to infidels (who are frequently described as being less than human). It is a verse that is often deliberately quoted out of context by Muslims who would deceive infidels into thinking that their "religion" is somehow one of peace. However, the very next verse, Sura 5:33, says this:
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement."
So much for the call to universal brotherhood. Indeed, in Islamic Shariah law, the death penalty for murder applies only to the one who kills a Muslim; it does not apply to a Muslim who kills an infidel.
One thing I will say about Al Qaeda is that they are wholly honest and unhypocritical in their interpretation of Mohammedan scriptures. Have you even read the Qu'ran, Mr Heelers? If you do, you will find that it is most certainly NOT in Harmony with the Bible. Read it all - it will make your hair stand up in horror.
I disagree with you Mr P.
I think it's quoted in context.
And everything else out of context.
But we'll see on judgement day.
J
Heelz.
You standing up for Muslims?
After an article like the one you've just posted?
Don't take this the wrong way, but now I've seen everything.
It's a long road that knows no turning.
Avid Fan
I call em as I see em Avid.
You know that.
Have you formally chickened out of the debate by deleting one of Pochechechechechech's comments?
Avid Fan
I have Avid.
The rules are simple.
You can spit on my blue swede shoes.
You can call my hamster a testicle.
You can even suggest Barack Obama will make a good President.
But nobody, but nobody, noooooboooodddddddyyyyyyyyy, nobody casts doubt on my knowledge of the Qu'ran.
Post a Comment
<< Home