| Antoon |
7 oktober 2005 09:19 |
Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door MiSTa SCienTiST
Bush mag een speech geven van 20 minuten,
het enige wat de msm verkiezen te laten zien in samenvattingen zijn meestal 1 of 2 korte stukjes in de stijl van:
"We will never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory."
of
"We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire or rest until the war on terror is won."
Zo zitten er altijd wel enkele zinnetjes in. Maar ja Bush moet dom, oninhoudelijk en afgezaagd overkomen niet waar..(?)
De inhoud van de speech zal men in een samenvatting allesinds niet terug vinden.
Ik heb de speech gekeken op cnn en een beetje de "analyses" daarna ook op bbc, vooral benieuwd naar enige reacties over de link die Bush maakte tussen islamisme en communisme.
Het stuk was anders niet mis te verstaan:
Citaat:
"The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century.
Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses.
Osama bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers.
He assures them that this is the road to paradise, though he never offers to go along for the ride.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life.
We've seen it in the murders of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg and Margaret Hassan and many others.
In a courtroom in the Netherlands, the killer of Theo van Gogh turned to the victim's grieving mother and said, "I do not feel your pain because I believe you are an infidel."
And in spite of this veneer of religious rhetoric, most of the victims claimed by the militants are fellow Muslims.
When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder, pure and simple; the total rejection of justice and honor and moral and religion.
We have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before, in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags and the Cultural Revolution and the killing fields.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be in an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies.
In truth, they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves.
Under their rule, they have banned books and desecrated historical monuments and brutalized women
They seek to end dissent in every form and to control every aspect of life and to rule the soul itself.
While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent.
Zarqawi has said that Americans are, quote, "the most cowardly of God's creatures," but let's be clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs and cuts the throat of a bound captive and targets worshippers leaving a mosque.
It is courage that liberated more than 50 million people. It is courage that keeps an untiring vigil against the enemies of a rising democracy. And it is courage and the cause of freedom that once again will destroy the enemies of freedom.
And Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure.
By fearing freedom, by distrusting human creativity and punishing change and limiting the contributions of half the population, this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible and human society successful."
|
De enige reactie op dit stuk die ik gezien heb was er één van... ontkenning.
Namelijk een BBC-analyst aan het witte huis die kort zei dat islamisme en communisme niets gemeen hebben. Beiden waren hooguit "misschien" "gewoon" totalitair.8)
Even later een CNN-anchoress die ook over ging naar een analist ter plaatse en zei (+/-)
"we'll go to mister X now to hear a bit more of which parts of the speech were fact and what was HYPE".
Vervolgens kwam dit wel aan bod:
"Yet the evil of that morning (9-11) has reappeared on other days in other places -- in Mombasa and Casablanca and Riyadh and Jakarta and Istanbul, in Madrid, in Beslan, in Taba and Netanya and Baghdad and elsewhere.
In the past few months, we've seen a new terror offensive with attacks in London, Sharm el-Sheikh and a deadly bombing in Bali once again."
Vergezeld uiteraard met een luchtige insinuatie dat Bush de wereld toch blijkbaar niet zo heel vredig gemaakt heeft.:|
En tot daar de analyse.
Wat Bush verder zei was:
Citaat:
"All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness. Innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train or worked in the wrong building or checked into the wrong hotel.
And while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil but not insane.
Some call this evil Islamic radicalism. Others militant jihadism.
Still, others Islamo-fascism.
Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.
These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus and also against Muslims from other traditions that they regard as heretics."
|
Toch tamelijk to the point of niet?
Het volgende citaat wordt ook best niet herhaald op tv in de MSM want het zou te veel voorstanders kweken:
Citaat:
"Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. It's a dangerous illusion refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe or less safe with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people and its resources?
Having removed a dictator and aided free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers dedicated to the destruction of our own country seizes control of Iraq by violence.
There's always a temptation in the middle of a long struggle to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder.
This would be a pleasant world, but it's not the world we live in. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality.
The enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence.
In Iraq, there is no peace without victory.
We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory."
|
Maar dat is niet belangrijk.
Bush is dom.
|
Wanneer je zo'n speach lees of hoor (ik heb de hele speach kunnen zien), en wanneer je vaststelt dat er ook daden achter de woorden staan (iets wat vandaag bij de Europese politici onvindbaar is) dan weet je dat Bush een goede President is.
We mogen van geluk spreken dat er iemand in het Witte Huis zit die zich niet laat verleiden door gemakzucht, laat staan door betweters (vooral dan met de tong).
Ik moet trouwens altijd lachen wanneer ik imbecielen zie, hoor en lees die zich intelligent genoeg wanen om Bush dom te kunnen vinden :lol: .[edit]
[size=1] Edit:[/size] [size=1]After edit by Antoon on 07-10-2005 at 10:25
Reason:
--------------------------------
Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door MiSTa SCienTiST
Bush mag een speech geven van 20 minuten,
het enige wat de msm verkiezen te laten zien in samenvattingen zijn meestal 1 of 2 korte stukjes in de stijl van:
"We will never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory."
of
"We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire or rest until the war on terror is won."
Zo zitten er altijd wel enkele zinnetjes in. Maar ja Bush moet dom, oninhoudelijk en afgezaagd overkomen niet waar..(?)
De inhoud van de speech zal men in een samenvatting allesinds niet terug vinden.
Ik heb de speech gekeken op cnn en een beetje de "analyses" daarna ook op bbc, vooral benieuwd naar enige reacties over de link die Bush maakte tussen islamisme en communisme.
Het stuk was anders niet mis te verstaan:
Citaat:
"The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century.
Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses.
Osama bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers.
He assures them that this is the road to paradise, though he never offers to go along for the ride.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life.
We've seen it in the murders of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg and Margaret Hassan and many others.
In a courtroom in the Netherlands, the killer of Theo van Gogh turned to the victim's grieving mother and said, "I do not feel your pain because I believe you are an infidel."
And in spite of this veneer of religious rhetoric, most of the victims claimed by the militants are fellow Muslims.
When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder, pure and simple; the total rejection of justice and honor and moral and religion.
We have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before, in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags and the Cultural Revolution and the killing fields.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be in an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies.
In truth, they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves.
Under their rule, they have banned books and desecrated historical monuments and brutalized women
They seek to end dissent in every form and to control every aspect of life and to rule the soul itself.
While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent.
Zarqawi has said that Americans are, quote, "the most cowardly of God's creatures," but let's be clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs and cuts the throat of a bound captive and targets worshippers leaving a mosque.
It is courage that liberated more than 50 million people. It is courage that keeps an untiring vigil against the enemies of a rising democracy. And it is courage and the cause of freedom that once again will destroy the enemies of freedom.
And Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure.
By fearing freedom, by distrusting human creativity and punishing change and limiting the contributions of half the population, this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible and human society successful."
|
De enige reactie op dit stuk die ik gezien heb was er één van... ontkenning.
Namelijk een BBC-analyst aan het witte huis die kort zei dat islamisme en communisme niets gemeen hebben. Beiden waren hooguit "misschien" "gewoon" totalitair.8)
Even later een CNN-anchoress die ook over ging naar een analist ter plaatse en zei (+/-)
"we'll go to mister X now to hear a bit more of which parts of the speech were fact and what was HYPE".
Vervolgens kwam dit wel aan bod:
"Yet the evil of that morning (9-11) has reappeared on other days in other places -- in Mombasa and Casablanca and Riyadh and Jakarta and Istanbul, in Madrid, in Beslan, in Taba and Netanya and Baghdad and elsewhere.
In the past few months, we've seen a new terror offensive with attacks in London, Sharm el-Sheikh and a deadly bombing in Bali once again."
Vergezeld uiteraard met een luchtige insinuatie dat Bush de wereld toch blijkbaar niet zo heel vredig gemaakt heeft.:|
En tot daar de analyse.
Wat Bush verder zei was:
Citaat:
"All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness. Innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train or worked in the wrong building or checked into the wrong hotel.
And while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil but not insane.
Some call this evil Islamic radicalism. Others militant jihadism.
Still, others Islamo-fascism.
Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.
These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus and also against Muslims from other traditions that they regard as heretics."
|
Toch tamelijk to the point of niet?
Het volgende citaat wordt ook best niet herhaald op tv in de MSM want het zou te veel voorstanders kweken:
Citaat:
"Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. It's a dangerous illusion refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe or less safe with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people and its resources?
Having removed a dictator and aided free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers dedicated to the destruction of our own country seizes control of Iraq by violence.
There's always a temptation in the middle of a long struggle to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder.
This would be a pleasant world, but it's not the world we live in. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality.
The enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence.
In Iraq, there is no peace without victory.
We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory."
|
Maar dat is niet belangrijk.
Bush is dom.
|
Wanneer je zo'n speach lees of hoor (ik heb de hele speach kunnen zien), en wanneer je vaststelt dat er ook daden achter de woorden staan (iets wat vandaag bij de Europese politici onvindbaar is) dan weet je dat Bush een goede President is.
We mogen van geluk spreken dat er iemand in het Witte Huis zit die zich niet laat verleiden door gemakzucht, laat staan door betweters (vooral dan met de tong).
Ik moet trouwens altijd lachen wanneer ik imbecielen zie, hoor en lees die zich intelligent genoeg wanen om Bush dom te kunnen vinden :lol: .[/size] |
[size=1] Edit:[/size] [size=1]After edit by Antoon on 07-10-2005 at 10:21
Reason:
--------------------------------
[quote=MiSTa SCienTiST]Bush mag een speech geven van 20 minuten,
het enige wat de msm verkiezen te laten zien in samenvattingen zijn meestal 1 of 2 korte stukjes in de stijl van:
"We will never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory."
of
"We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire or rest until the war on terror is won."
Zo zitten er altijd wel enkele zinnetjes in. Maar ja Bush moet dom, oninhoudelijk en afgezaagd overkomen niet waar..(?)
De inhoud van de speech zal men in een samenvatting allesinds niet terug vinden.
Ik heb de speech gekeken op cnn en een beetje de "analyses" daarna ook op bbc, vooral benieuwd naar enige reacties over de link die Bush maakte tussen islamisme en communisme.
Het stuk was anders niet mis te verstaan:
"The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century.
Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses.
Osama bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers.
He assures them that this is the road to paradise, though he never offers to go along for the ride.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life.
We've seen it in the murders of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg and Margaret Hassan and many others.
In a courtroom in the Netherlands, the killer of Theo van Gogh turned to the victim's grieving mother and said, "I do not feel your pain because I believe you are an infidel."
And in spite of this veneer of religious rhetoric, most of the victims claimed by the militants are fellow Muslims.
When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder, pure and simple; the total rejection of justice and honor and moral and religion.
We have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before, in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags and the Cultural Revolution and the killing fields.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be in an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies.
In truth, they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves.
Under their rule, they have banned books and desecrated historical monuments and brutalized women
They seek to end dissent in every form and to control every aspect of life and to rule the soul itself.
While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent.
Zarqawi has said that Americans are, quote, "the most cowardly of God's creatures," but let's be clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs and cuts the throat of a bound captive and targets worshippers leaving a mosque.
It is courage that liberated more than 50 million people. It is courage that keeps an untiring vigil against the enemies of a rising democracy. And it is courage and the cause of freedom that once again will destroy the enemies of freedom.
And Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure.
By fearing freedom, by distrusting human creativity and punishing change and limiting the contributions of half the population, this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible and human society successful."
Citaat:
De enige reactie op dit stuk die ik gezien heb was er één van... ontkenning.
Namelijk een BBC-analyst aan het witte huis die kort zei dat islamisme en communisme niets gemeen hebben. Beiden waren hooguit "misschien" "gewoon" totalitair.8)
Even later een CNN-anchoress die ook over ging naar een analist ter plaatse en zei (+/-)
"we'll go to mister X now to hear a bit more of which parts of the speech were fact and what was HYPE".
Vervolgens kwam dit wel aan bod:
|
Citaat:
"Yet the evil of that morning (9-11) has reappeared on other days in other places -- in Mombasa and Casablanca and Riyadh and Jakarta and Istanbul, in Madrid, in Beslan, in Taba and Netanya and Baghdad and elsewhere.
In the past few months, we've seen a new terror offensive with attacks in London, Sharm el-Sheikh and a deadly bombing in Bali once again."
Vergezeld uiteraard met een luchtige insinuatie dat Bush de wereld toch blijkbaar niet zo heel vredig gemaakt heeft.:|
En tot daar de analyse.
Wat Bush verder zei was:
"All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness. Innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train or worked in the wrong building or checked into the wrong hotel.
And while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil but not insane.
Some call this evil Islamic radicalism. Others militant jihadism.
Still, others Islamo-fascism.
Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.
These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus and also against Muslims from other traditions that they regard as heretics."
Toch tamelijk to the point of niet?
Het volgende citaat wordt ook best niet herhaald op tv in de MSM want het zou te veel voorstanders kweken:
"Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. It's a dangerous illusion refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe or less safe with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people and its resources?
Having removed a dictator and aided free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers dedicated to the destruction of our own country seizes control of Iraq by violence.
There's always a temptation in the middle of a long struggle to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder.
This would be a pleasant world, but it's not the world we live in. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality.
The enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence.
In Iraq, there is no peace without victory.
We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory."
Maar dat is niet belangrijk.
Bush is dom.
|
Wanneer je zo'n speach lees of hoor (ik heb de hele speach kunnen zien), en wanneer je vaststelt dat er ook daden achter de woorden staan (iets wat vandaag bij de Europese politici onvindbaar is) dan weet je dat Bush een goede President is.
We mogen van geluk spreken dat er iemand in het Witte Huis zit die zich niet laat verleiden door gemakzucht, laat staan door betweters (vooral dan met de tong).
Ik moet trouwens altijd lachen wanneer ik imbecielen zie, hoor en lees die zich intelligent genoeg wanen om Bush dom te kunnen vinden :lol: .[/size] |
[size=1] Edit:[/size] [size=1]After edit by Antoon on 07-10-2005 at 10:20
Reason:
--------------------------------
[quote=MiSTa SCienTiST]Bush mag een speech geven van 20 minuten,
het enige wat de msm verkiezen te laten zien in samenvattingen zijn meestal 1 of 2 korte stukjes in de stijl van:
"We will never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory."
of
"We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire or rest until the war on terror is won."
Zo zitten er altijd wel enkele zinnetjes in. Maar ja Bush moet dom, oninhoudelijk en afgezaagd overkomen niet waar..(?)
De inhoud van de speech zal men in een samenvatting allesinds niet terug vinden.
Ik heb de speech gekeken op cnn en een beetje de "analyses" daarna ook op bbc, vooral benieuwd naar enige reacties over de link die Bush maakte tussen islamisme en communisme.
Het stuk was anders niet mis te verstaan:
Citaat:
"The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century.
Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses.
Osama bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers.
He assures them that this is the road to paradise, though he never offers to go along for the ride.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life.
We've seen it in the murders of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg and Margaret Hassan and many others.
In a courtroom in the Netherlands, the killer of Theo van Gogh turned to the victim's grieving mother and said, "I do not feel your pain because I believe you are an infidel."
And in spite of this veneer of religious rhetoric, most of the victims claimed by the militants are fellow Muslims.
When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder, pure and simple; the total rejection of justice and honor and moral and religion.
We have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before, in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags and the Cultural Revolution and the killing fields.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be in an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies.
In truth, they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves.
Under their rule, they have banned books and desecrated historical monuments and brutalized women
They seek to end dissent in every form and to control every aspect of life and to rule the soul itself.
While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent.
Zarqawi has said that Americans are, quote, "the most cowardly of God's creatures," but let's be clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs and cuts the throat of a bound captive and targets worshippers leaving a mosque.
It is courage that liberated more than 50 million people. It is courage that keeps an untiring vigil against the enemies of a rising democracy. And it is courage and the cause of freedom that once again will destroy the enemies of freedom.
And Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure.
By fearing freedom, by distrusting human creativity and punishing change and limiting the contributions of half the population, this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible and human society successful."
Citaat:
De enige reactie op dit stuk die ik gezien heb was er één van... ontkenning.
Namelijk een BBC-analyst aan het witte huis die kort zei dat islamisme en communisme niets gemeen hebben. Beiden waren hooguit "misschien" "gewoon" totalitair.8)
Even later een CNN-anchoress die ook over ging naar een analist ter plaatse en zei (+/-)
"we'll go to mister X now to hear a bit more of which parts of the speech were fact and what was HYPE".
Vervolgens kwam dit wel aan bod:
|
|
Citaat:
Citaat:
"Yet the evil of that morning (9-11) has reappeared on other days in other places -- in Mombasa and Casablanca and Riyadh and Jakarta and Istanbul, in Madrid, in Beslan, in Taba and Netanya and Baghdad and elsewhere.
In the past few months, we've seen a new terror offensive with attacks in London, Sharm el-Sheikh and a deadly bombing in Bali once again."
Vergezeld uiteraard met een luchtige insinuatie dat Bush de wereld toch blijkbaar niet zo heel vredig gemaakt heeft.:|
En tot daar de analyse.
Wat Bush verder zei was:
"All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness. Innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train or worked in the wrong building or checked into the wrong hotel.
And while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil but not insane.
Some call this evil Islamic radicalism. Others militant jihadism.
Still, others Islamo-fascism.
Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.
These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus and also against Muslims from other traditions that they regard as heretics."
Toch tamelijk to the point of niet?
Het volgende citaat wordt ook best niet herhaald op tv in de MSM want het zou te veel voorstanders kweken:
"Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. It's a dangerous illusion refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe or less safe with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people and its resources?
Having removed a dictator and aided free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers dedicated to the destruction of our own country seizes control of Iraq by violence.
There's always a temptation in the middle of a long struggle to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder.
This would be a pleasant world, but it's not the world we live in. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality.
The enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence.
In Iraq, there is no peace without victory.
We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory."
|
Maar dat is niet belangrijk.
Bush is dom.
|
Wanneer je zo'n speach lees of hoor (ik heb de hele speach kunnen zien), en wanneer je vaststelt dat er ook daden achter de woorden staan (iets wat vandaag bij de Europese politici onvindbaar is) dan weet je dat Bush een goede President is.
We mogen van geluk spreken dat er iemand in het Witte Huis zit die zich niet laat verleiden door gemakzucht, laat staan door betweters (vooral dan met de tong).
Ik moet trouwens altijd lachen wanneer ik imbecielen zie, hoor en lees die zich intelligent genoeg wanen om Bush dom te kunnen vinden :lol: .[/size] |
[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------
[quote=MiSTa SCienTiST]Bush mag een speech geven van 20 minuten,
het enige wat de msm verkiezen te laten zien in samenvattingen zijn meestal 1 of 2 korte stukjes in de stijl van:
"We will never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory."
of
"We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire or rest until the war on terror is won."
Zo zitten er altijd wel enkele zinnetjes in. Maar ja Bush moet dom, oninhoudelijk en afgezaagd overkomen niet waar..(?)
De inhoud van de speech zal men in een samenvatting allesinds niet terug vinden.
Ik heb de speech gekeken op cnn en een beetje de "analyses" daarna ook op bbc, vooral benieuwd naar enige reacties over de link die Bush maakte tussen islamisme en communisme.
Het stuk was anders niet mis te verstaan:
[quote]"The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century.
Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses.
Osama bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers.
He assures them that this is the road to paradise, though he never offers to go along for the ride.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life.
We've seen it in the murders of Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg and Margaret Hassan and many others.
In a courtroom in the Netherlands, the killer of Theo van Gogh turned to the victim's grieving mother and said, "I do not feel your pain because I believe you are an infidel."
And in spite of this veneer of religious rhetoric, most of the victims claimed by the militants are fellow Muslims.
When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder, pure and simple; the total rejection of justice and honor and moral and religion.
We have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before, in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags and the Cultural Revolution and the killing fields.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be in an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies.
In truth, they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves.
Under their rule, they have banned books and desecrated historical monuments and brutalized women
They seek to end dissent in every form and to control every aspect of life and to rule the soul itself.
While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent.
Zarqawi has said that Americans are, quote, "the most cowardly of God's creatures," but let's be clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs and cuts the throat of a bound captive and targets worshippers leaving a mosque.
It is courage that liberated more than 50 million people. It is courage that keeps an untiring vigil against the enemies of a rising democracy. And it is courage and the cause of freedom that once again will destroy the enemies of freedom.
And Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure.
By fearing freedom, by distrusting human creativity and punishing change and limiting the contributions of half the population, this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible and human society successful."
Citaat:
De enige reactie op dit stuk die ik gezien heb was er één van... ontkenning.
Namelijk een BBC-analyst aan het witte huis die kort zei dat islamisme en communisme niets gemeen hebben. Beiden waren hooguit "misschien" "gewoon" totalitair.8)
Even later een CNN-anchoress die ook over ging naar een analist ter plaatse en zei (+/-)
"we'll go to mister X now to hear a bit more of which parts of the speech were fact and what was HYPE".
Vervolgens kwam dit wel aan bod:
|
Citaat:
"Yet the evil of that morning (9-11) has reappeared on other days in other places -- in Mombasa and Casablanca and Riyadh and Jakarta and Istanbul, in Madrid, in Beslan, in Taba and Netanya and Baghdad and elsewhere.
In the past few months, we've seen a new terror offensive with attacks in London, Sharm el-Sheikh and a deadly bombing in Bali once again."
Vergezeld uiteraard met een luchtige insinuatie dat Bush de wereld toch blijkbaar niet zo heel vredig gemaakt heeft.:|
En tot daar de analyse.
Wat Bush verder zei was:
"All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness. Innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train or worked in the wrong building or checked into the wrong hotel.
And while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil but not insane.
Some call this evil Islamic radicalism. Others militant jihadism.
Still, others Islamo-fascism.
Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.
These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus and also against Muslims from other traditions that they regard as heretics."
Toch tamelijk to the point of niet?
Het volgende citaat wordt ook best niet herhaald op tv in de MSM want het zou te veel voorstanders kweken:
"Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. It's a dangerous illusion refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe or less safe with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people and its resources?
Having removed a dictator and aided free peoples, we will not stand by as a new set of killers dedicated to the destruction of our own country seizes control of Iraq by violence.
There's always a temptation in the middle of a long struggle to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder.
This would be a pleasant world, but it's not the world we live in. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality.
The enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence.
In Iraq, there is no peace without victory.
We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory."
Maar dat is niet belangrijk.
Bush is dom.
|
Wanneer je zo'n speach lees of hoor (ik heb de hele speach kunnen zien), en wanneer je vaststelt dat er ook daden achter de woorden staan (iets wat vandaag bij de Europese politici onvindbaar is) dan weet je dat Bush een goede President is.
We mogen van geluk spreken dat er iemand in het Witte Huis zit die zich niet laat verleiden door gemakzucht, laat staan door betweters (vooral dan met de tong).
Ik moet trouwens altijd lachen wanneer ik imbecielen zie, hoor en lees die zich intelligent genoeg wanen om Bush dom te kunnen vinden :lol: .[/size] |
[/edit] |
