Fury

"How in the world can the dangerous turns of a convicted child molester cross your desk—high risk mind you—and yet you find more benevolence toward the violator than you do towards the violated? He's now killed a little boy that he molested, all in the wake of your legal blessing—in retroactive thanksgiving towards you and your judicial liberalism, Judge. And for good measure, he beat the rest of that little boy's family to death, and abused his sister just for kicks. All because you let him go—judge."

Read it all. Our "judges" must STOP putting the rights of pedophiles above those of our children.

The situation with many of our judges is bad, but not only due to their negligence in protecting our children. I can't help but notice the similarity in how the rights of terrorists are protected by judges both here and in Europe, even as the blood of their victims is splashed on the walls of London. And unless the attack is on the scale of 9-11, our governments refuse to punish those states which actively support terrorism. Now everyone has their own theory as to why people want to blow us up.

"We know very well what the "grievances" of the jihadists are.
The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won't abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism."

I had, in an earlier post, suggested half jokingly that the reason for Islamic terrorism has to do with impotence. I am more inclined to believe, seriously, that their religion is indeed a death cult - they worship death. (To be honest, I don't care why they want to kill us. Trying to reason with your own executioner is an act of insanity if you ask me.) Our enemies are not afraid of death. Therefore, we must determine what it is that they are afraid of and use that to our advantage. Giving captured terrorists blood transfusions of pig's blood might help... kinda twisted though.

Also, and this is essential, we must hold someone responsible for these acts of terrorism. Iran is only the most likely candidate/target. Syria is also a sponsor of terrorism. But would invading Iran or Syria actually make a difference? Could it actually make things worse? I'm just asking. Eventually, things may become more urgent. An example may need to be made. If it comes down to it, if we have to decide between freedom and survival, the enemy needs to understand that the U.S. is not Europe. "Give me liberty or give me death" are not just words to an American. I think that nuking Mecca and Medina would very much be considered a rational response in this country, and would be demanded if, say for example, the water supply near Lodi, California were poisoned causing mass death (millions).

It is true, we are not afraid, but could you imagine what it would be like if we as a nation really were afraid?