Talk:Terrorists Among Us - Jihad in America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

TERRORISTS AMONG US - JIJHAD IN AMERICA

Us? Is it there any of US or is it just some of the two-folded democrats and us? Where does it ends the partnership between us if not in the junkey-moore side misunderstood of democracy, just like Chavez or Castro would say, the freedom but revolutionary. Was it by chance that during the Clinton administration, the head of probably the most important antiterrorist agent occurred at the FBI or near? Is there any chance that during this same administration this same beheaded was forbidden to travel to Yemen to continue the investigation and instead just to having to accept a faking retaliation as a proof of the committment of democrat party against the terrorist thread that was about to happen and is still runing? Is it possible that the two-folded democrat agenda is alway managing to prevent the terrorists attacks to occur during their administration no matter what happen as the republicans get to power? Is it any doubt that one democrat fold works by the side of terrorism in order to perform the attacks, not only against US but agains anyone who decides to f-off terrorism? Is it any doubt that the democrat-terrorist strategy targets just to curb democracy to force the people to vote for the mother-f socialists which have always been against US? Isn´t it that one the reason why the hypocrites use terror and fear to create the appropiate atmosphere where to proliferate until the next coup and to prevent US of fighting for our right, which in the end is the only true human right people has to exerpt? They just want people to submitt to the muslim-neo-socialism and the two folded democrats are trying to make US believe that they are going to prevent them from f-off us. It is not acceptable to let the terrorist live inside US and f-off US from inside just because the democrats had a two-folded interpretation about what civil rights and freedom is. When they talk about freedom they are fooling US all: they are talking about the revolutionary freedom (Chaves and Castro)´s version, they are not talking about what we mean by freedom. They are talking about the favelas dictatorship or maybe about the muslim conquest of the land of the infidels. What I see is that people has not very much as to choice. They had to decide between republicans and the two-fold democrat policy. I think that solution to prevent terrorism to infiltrate us would be to stand away from the two-folded option. It seems as if the two-folded democrats were workig for the terrorist to help them to conquer the land of the infidels and to submitt US to their stupid (John Lennon, Michael Moore and all the rock´n roll junkies who work for the french neo-socialism)´s will: they do not think that its regime is a failure. The Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, North Corea, Cuba and the misery running on those regimes is not enough for the mother-f to stop fueling the criminals to kill and extorsionate people to submmitt to their wills to help them to get to power. They´re continuously changing its agenda to fit the face reality shows them, until finally ending by represent a bunch of people that outside looks like pacifists and socialists and keep talking about social injustice but indide are just another burgeois. They are just fighting to get to power by any mean there is, even backing up terrorism and narcotraffic. They didnot loose their way, they just never had one: they were first committed to communism, it was a failure, many people died in its name, now they say they are communists but they know this is bullshit but they do not care. They keep on taking drugs and blaming Bush for everything they see wrong. Of course they do not want people to believe that they are actually blaming about US, but they do are blaming about the US. They are backing up the people that has always blamed about US not just about Bush. They do not say in their speeches there has been no holocaust but they think so. Neither Eisenhower nor Kennedy would have had any doubt. They are betraying the principles of democracy. They are willing to support Iran nuclear intentions the same way the French government provided the Iraquis with the technology to build the bomb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.245.46 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:JihadInAmerica.jpg

Image:JihadInAmerica.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:JihadInAmerica.jpg

Image:JihadInAmerica.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)