Posted on 12/30/2009 5:35:05 AM PST by Labour-Watch
Odumbo = Carters 2nd term, on steroids.
What? Jimmy Carter soft on terrorism? No, can’t be!
Oh, those crazy Democrats!
Jimmah was in love with those who hate us way back then.
Yet another thing for which we have Ronald Regan to thank. He shut down the weapons pipeline from the US to the IRA.
His post Presidential actions show just how totally miserable Carter is as a human being.
Is there a murderous, terrorist thug, dictator, or group that jimmy doesn’t love?
Mark
Would you have expected anything more from our first female president? The biggest peaNUT Georgia ever produced.
Now we have BO Plenty, who is even worse than Jimmy when it comes to foreign relations and homeland security.
Everytime BO Plenty talks about islamic terrorists it is always an isolated incident. This is getting old and the American people are becoming more aware of BO Plenty’s muslim roots showing.
Look at the Democrat’s base of support - Irish, Union. The IRA fundraisers circulated through Boston, NYC, Chicago, and all of the other cities with significant Irish-American populations.
And now the Georgia State Senate braces for the possible arrival of Jimmah’s grandson who is running for an open seat in Decatur GA.
The US was under no obligation to fight Great Britain's political battles for them.
Lord Mountbatten was a war hero killed by cowardly terrorist scum. Are you saying every world war 2 vet deserves to be blown up as they lived by the sword?
To a very limited extent, I agree with you. In a war situation Earl Mountbatten could be regarded as a legitimate target. He was a senior politician, and a senior member of the British defence forces.
But the two children who died with him - his grandson, and a 15 year old boy who'd been hired to work the boat - were not legitimate targets. Nor was the 83 year old woman who was killed.
The IRA bombed a boat with three children on board and killed two of them. This was not collateral damage - the Earl would not have been hard to kill on his own - but a deliberate act of terror.
I agree that the death of the children was terrible. I would never refer to them as "collateral damage" or "human shields". Their deaths were a terrible and unfortunate consequence of "Lord" Battenberg's supreme arrogance. I do wish they were not involved.
"His Serene Highness Prince Louis of Battenberg" however, got what was coming to him. You don't dare the IRA to kill you and then flaunt it in their face by strolling through their neighborhood.
How did he get what was coming to him?
The Earl loved Ireland (and privately believed that it should be united as a Republic although he didn't express this belief publically because of the constitutional problems that might have created). That's why he visited Ireland so much, because he loved Ireland and the Irish. He was no coward and so he didn't let threats deter him from this.
When people want to kill you, just because of who you are, it isn't arrogance to refuse to hide from them. It's courage. As I say, he was arguably a legitimate target, and he accepted that. But he wasn't going to hide.
It appears that grand wazoo is a supporter of terrorism. He may well be Peter King!
He was much more than a WWII vet. Maybe you should read a little more about him. WikiPedia Link
I know you Brits have no problem with "royalty" and the idea that some men are more equal than others. Also, you pine for the glory days of the British Empire on which the sun never set. However, you never seem to have any empathy concerning the negative effects it had on the nations you ruled. They were there to be ruled over and they damn well better appreciate it.
Not everyone agreed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.