1 I find it ironic that they would deride the Statue of Liberty by showing it (and by extension, the country) as a terrorist. In so doing, they are deriding themselves. Unless, for some warped reason, a Palestinian wearing a bomb belt and carrying an AK47 = good and being American wearing a bomb belt and carrying an AK47 = bad? Then we have the pissing on a statue carrying a book titled Democracy. Didn't they just have democratic elections they're so proud of? Depicting us as what they are somehow strikes me as hypocritical.

2 Oh, I get it. Just because they voted for Hamas that means we're supposed to give Hamas money. See, that's how democracy works! If they voted for Hitler that means he was elected democratically and we're supposed to support him! The fact that we don't give Hamas money is proof that democracy is a sham. That's how their primitive thinking goes.

3 Yeah, I noticed this the other day And created an editted version of the editorial cartoon. Lady Liberty becomes Burqa B!tch, holding the Sword of Jihadi Terror. Care to to guess the book being. . . uhhhh. . . moistened? http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/179355.php

4 The Palestinians have been their own worst enemy for quite some time. If only they had been led by Mandela instead of Arafat.

5 >>>If only they had been led by Mandela instead of Arafat. jd, impossible. It's not just an accident that the palestinians have leaders like Arafat and Hamas. You see, Mandela represented his people's desire to live in peace with white folks. No such desire to live in peace with their neighbors is found amongst the palestinians. It certainly does not represent their views. So Arafat was the natural consequece of that, and political parties like Hamas naturally and organically take root and assume power. They truly do represent the aspirations of the palestinian people. Mandela or Ghandi were never an option.