Not a Russian spy, he's a Muslin terrorist

ann.coulter2 · #1 12-05-2006, 03:54 PM

As the London Times says below, Litvinenko, the "Russian spy" being portrayed in the NYTimes, WAPost, and their liberal cohorts as a victim of Putin and his commie comrads, may actually be a Muslim terrorist. The polonium-210 that killed him may have been meant for the next terrorist attack on London's innocent citizens - the first case of nuclear terrorism.

Litvinenko, praise Allah, died at his own hand before he could act.
.........................

timesonline:

Litvinenko's father, Walter, said in an interview published today that his son - who was born an Orthodox Christian but had close links to Islamist rebels in Chechnya - had requested to be buried according to Muslim tradition after converting to Islam on his deathbed.

"He said ’I want to be buried according to Muslim tradition’," Mr Litvinenko told Moscow's Kommersant daily.

"I said, ’Well son, as you wish. We already have one Muslim in our family - my daughter is married to a Muslim. The important thing is to believe in the Almighty. God is one.’"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...486268,00.html

amycat412 · #2 12-05-2006, 03:58 PM

oh no! Not a MUSLIN terrorist!!! TEH HORROR!!!!

Drolefille · #3 12-05-2006, 04:07 PM

He runs around tossing fabric over buildings!

OH NOES!

Seriously though, he converted at his death, if you're going to bomb someone in the name of Allah, you're going to convert a bit earlier.

mulattogyrl · #4 12-05-2006, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

He runs around tossing fabric over buildings!

OH NOES!

LMAAAAAAAAAAO!!! You all are crazy.

bcdphie · #5 12-05-2006, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amycat412

oh no! Not a MUSLIN terrorist!!! TEH HORROR!!!!

Damn, beat me to it

.

AlexMack · #6 12-05-2006, 07:07 PM

I hate these tailor maniacs. Give them a needle and they think they have a right to blow up anyone who disagrees with their choice of fabric.

sdsuchelle · #7 12-05-2006, 08:06 PM

Muslin should be considered terrorism.

SHEETCAKE · #8 12-05-2006, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdsuchelle

Muslin should be considered terrorism.

This was a bridesmaid dress at a wedding I was served at last July. Most unfortunate and very unflattering on the hips.

tunatartare · #9 12-06-2006, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdsuchelle

Muslin should be considered terrorism.

The only thing that could possibly make that dress work would be some gasoline and a match.

Munchkin03 · #10 12-09-2006, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdsuchelle

Muslin should be considered terrorism.

What is this, RUMSPRINGA gear?

Hey Hoosier--do you write porn about Ann Coulter, too?

_Opi_ · #11 12-05-2006, 04:05 PM

Yeah, right. Because he has "ties" to Chechneyan rebels and *gasp* he may be muslim, therefore, let's make some wild accusations that he IS a terrorist and a massive nuclear terror attack has been thwarted.

LOL.

MysticCat · #12 12-05-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ann.coulter2

As the London Times says below, Litvinenko, the "Russian spy" being portrayed in the NYTimes, WAPost, and their liberal cohorts as a victim of Putin and his commie comrads, may actually be a Muslim terrorist. The polonium-210 that killed him may have been meant for the next terrorist attack on London's innocent citizens - the first case of nuclear terrorism.

(A) Someone as well-educated as you certainly knows that the name of the newspaper is simply The Times.

(B) Nowhere in the article to which you linked does The Times say or imply that "Litvinenko, the 'Russian spy' being portrayed in the NYTimes, WAPost, and their liberal cohorts as a victim of Putin and his commie comrads, may actually be a Muslim terrorist." In fact, to the extent that the article considers the question at all, the only implication is that he may have been the victim of terrorists, not a terrorist himself.

(C) Get a life and stop using Ann Coulter's -- it's an embarrassment to both of you.

ann.coulter2 · #13 12-05-2006, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat

(A) Someone as well-educated as you certainly knows that the name of the newspaper is simply The Times.

(B) No where in the article to which you linked does The Times say or imply that "Litvinenko, the 'Russian spy' being portrayed in the NYTimes, WAPost, and their liberal cohorts as a victim of Putin and his commie comrads, may actually be a Muslim terrorist." In fact, to the extent that the article considers the question at all, the only implication is that he may have been the victim of terrorists, not a terrorist himself.

A - From other posts, it becomes pretty obvious that many of this site's posters get their news only from John Stewart, so 'London' is probably necessary.

B - Read between the lines, look for something else. Don't assume Litvinenko is a victim. Probably the truth will never be publicly known.

AlexMack · #14 12-05-2006, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ann.coulter2

A - From other posts, it becomes pretty obvious that many of this site's posters get their news only from John Stewart, so 'London' is probably necessary.

B - Read between the lines, look for something else. Don't assume Litvinenko is a victim. Probably the truth will never be publicly known.

A. Also known as Jon Stewart. Gonna insult the guy, get it right.
B. Secondly, as Jon himself put it so candidly 'the show that leads into [his] is puppets making prank phone calls.' No one is looking to Comedy Central for journalistic integrity, just like no one other than yourself believes that Fox News is 'fair and balanced'. We can all make up our own minds, kthx sockpuppet.

Wait wait wait...a guy converts to Islam on his deathbed and that makes him a terrorist? Didn't they find Polonium in his wife and colleagues' food too? I'm not sure if I follow how you're getting terrorist from radiation poisoning via sushi ingestion.

MysticCat · #15 12-06-2006, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ann.coulter2

B - Read between the lines, look for something else. Don't assume Litvinenko is a victim. Probably the truth will never be publicly known.

I can read between the lines -- apparently you can't (not sure you're even reading the lines themselves) so you have to make up things to stuff between the lines.

Bottom line: You quoted and linked to an article to support a specific premise -- that Litvinenko may have been/was probably a terrorist. Whether that premise has any possible validity or not, the article you rely on doesn't state, imply or support your premise. In fact, it undermines your premise. Someone who was on Law Review ought to be able to do better than that -- you'd be laughed out of court if this was the kind of authority you relied on.

Oh, but that's right -- you weren't really on Law Review. You're just a poser.