Feed on
Posts
Comments
«
»

Obama’s Blood Flag

Sep 20th, 2012 by

Traping over to Instapundiit during my lunch break, the window came up looking like this:

I thought, “Those stripes look like the blood on the columns at the U.S. consulate in Libya.” Then I scrolled down and saw the whole picture.

I wasn’t the only one who noticed the similarity.

Posted in Culture

11 Responses to “Obama’s Blood Flag”

  1. John E. says:
    September 20, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    Yeah, humans sure are good at pattern recognition…

  2. steve2 says:
    September 20, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    Reminds me of the emails I got from friends about how Obama’s campaign has used the word Forward as a campaign motto. Turns out some Marxist also used it. Quite the coincidence.

    Steve

  3. DADvocate says:
    September 20, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    You all don’t seem to recognize a sign from God, and the Obama campaigns poor choice. But, then again, I’ve come to expect very little from either of you. Well, nothing for John E. Steve’s not in full blinder mode, just 90%.

    • John E. says:
      September 20, 2012 at 4:58 pm

      interesting angle on that ‘sign from God’ thing – random patterns appear in tortilla and toast all the time. some people say it is a sign from God or the Virgin Mary with deep meaning.

      Me, I say it is random patterns to which people assign meaning according to their inclinations.

      Like what DADvocate has done here.

      • DADvocate says:
        September 20, 2012 at 6:04 pm

        It’s simple association. According to the principle of psychology, it’s impossible to not make associations. The point is to get a reaction like this: “I can’t look at the Obama flag now without imagining bloody fingers scraped across the cloth. ”

        According to the neuro linguistic psychology we’re “influenced by, how the sensory-specific modalities (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, gustatory) are organized and give rise to consciousness.” We make visual, auditory, etc associations.The first three are the most common. Most people have a primary mode. I tend to be mostly visual. My visual association when I see your name is this.

  4. Edward T Haines says:
    September 20, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    Let me see if I fully understand the situation. A movie is made that insults the religion Islam and its adherents. This has noting to do with subsequent riots by Muslims. That makes sense given that persons going on rampages are and should be fully accountable for their actions.

    The riots occurred during the administration of Barack Obama. Clearly the fact that these riots have occurred in Islamic nations is proof that his administration’s foreign policy is a failure. After all, there were no riots in those nations prior to his administration and no major terrorist events during administrations of presidents who presented “strong” fronts. Unless, that is you count the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon during President Reagan’s administration. Or, is it possible that the rioters are still fully accountable for their actions and not the president of the United States?

    • Hyphenated-American says:
      September 21, 2012 at 12:03 am

      “The riots occurred during the administration of Barack Obama. Clearly the fact that these riots have occurred in Islamic nations is proof that his administration’s foreign policy is a failure. ”

      The rioters took over American embassies, killed a US ambassador – and all of that in spite of Obama’s promises that moslems of the world would love him. Oh, and one more thing, Obama helped the Islamists to get rid of Mubarak (a US ally) and Kaddafi (recovering US enemy). Apparently, all Obama’s bowing and apologizing before the Islamists did not work.

    • JMK says:
      September 21, 2012 at 8:41 pm

      There’s no actual evidence that the film (“Innocence of Muslims”) had anything to do with either the attack on our Embassy in Benghazi, nor the Embassy attack in Cairo. The Benghazi attack was apparently timed with the Anniversary of 9/11 and the attack on the Embassy in Egypt makes much more sense as an orchestrated attempt to influence U.S. State Dept policy through violence. The State Department was reported to be “actively negotiating” with Egypt’s president about transferring the blind sheikh to Egyptian custody.

      The film has made a convenient scapegoat by THIS administration….there are no accounts of it being referenced by the “rioters” in those regions.

      The riots aren’t the fault of U.S. foreign policy, the reduced protection around both Embassy’s however, was.