Saturday, March 01, 2008

Threats to Prince Harry's life from the usual suspects

Thoughts of a crusade seem more appropriate lately.
Ran across this, which you may have already seen: it seems the islamist dirtbags have now decided that Prince Harry is an 'legitimate target' because he's 'acting tough', etc.

Considering these threats tend to come from the same goat-humpers who think it's a fine demonstration of faith to blow up kids in a school, or women in a market, or murder men who have the temerity to work as, say, police, their claims of upset don't exactly tug at my heartstrings. Do deal with a couple of things right off:
Omar Bakri Mohammad is a miserable, cowardly, chickenshit little offspring of a camel that was sold as a whore and a distempered mongrel. He wouldn't know a 'tough man' if- I take that back: he'd know a tough man because that'd be one of the troops ready to whack him. So your opinion, Omar, counts for less than the dog crap I had to scrape off my boot a while ago. Fuck you.

Rafiq Choudhry, 69, said: “The Royal Family is supposed to be neutral. If Prince Harry wants to be neutral he should not fight against Muslims.” Got news for you, dumbass: the Royal Family is NOT supposed to be neutral in facing threats to Britain, or civilization in general. And(to explain this because you're evidently too effing stupid to understand it on your own) he's NOT fighting against 'muslims'; he was fighting against a bunch of miserable excuses for men who think it's God's will to murder little girls for going to school, or their mothers for not dressing in a tent, or their fathers and brothers for not acting 'muslim enough' to suit the islamist assholes. So fuck you, too.

Britain really needs to get of its collective ass and
A: round up a bunch of the illegals and those aiding terrorists and prosecute and/or deport them, and
B: get their leaders off the "PC at any cost" throne.
The latter being just why so may of these child-murdering dirtbags keep doing and saying these things and getting away with them. Hell, they've got some of them living on welfare while calling for blood and death to the infidels, etc.

And do take note of this bullcrap:
Catherine Heseltine of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee warned that many might find Harry's "glorification" of war offensive. She said: "It is not the way to talk about a war where so many Muslims have lost their lives - men, women and children, innocent civilians. It is not an adventure, it is not exciting."
Madam, show me one place where he's said it was 'glorious'; and I'll bet it got real damn exciting at times, though not in the slanderous way you mean it. And the reason
"... so many Muslims have lost their lives - men, women and children, innocent civilians." is because radical muslim terrorists and islamists murdered them; dirtbags you, you bitch, seem to want to defend. Anyone who can think that fighting child-murdering terrorists equals murdering innocents is a friggin' moron. And as big a bigot as you'll run across.

Whatever his faults- a being human he has them- the guy fought like hell to stay with his unit, and when unable to did service in another where he'd still be except for the information getting out. Harry, I ever meet you, the drinks are on me. And thanks for being one of those who put his ass on the line fighting the bad guys.

1 comment:

Windy Wilson said...

This Catherine Haseltine swine performs the logical fallacy so common nowadays of hasty generalization. As the late, great William F. Buckley once said, it is not proper to compare someone who pushes little old ladies out of the way of subway trains and someone who pushes little old ladies under the wheels of subway trains and call them equivalent because both push little old ladies around.

To call this woman a moral cretin is to insult cretins, who presumably had no choice in the matter.