ocu> They were doing it as an insult and attack on a group of people who are different then themselves and they knew exactly what they were doing and how it would be received by the Muslim community
OCU,
You are being, well, you, again.
Would disingenuous be the right word for it?
(Disingenuous definition, lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.)
Yes, I believe it would be.
As for the WMD's in Iraq . . .
It would seem even the NY Times admits to them, now.
. . . .
BOMBSHELL: New York Times Reports WMDs WERE Found in Iraq!
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/
How many times have we been told that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq? I’m pretty sure I’ve heard it millions of times. I’ve read stories here and there over the last several years about WMDs being found, but of course it never got much news coverage – until now.
The New York Times shockingly admitted in an explosive front page report that thousands of WMDs were found in Iraq since the start of the war:
From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.
In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
So, now it needs to be repeated millions of times: there WERE WMDs found in Iraq! But of course The Times couldn’t admit that their discovery vindicates President Bush. Instead they claim that these WMDs don’t count and that an active WMD program was the only rationale for the Iraq War:
>>>
Article does continue. Zim.
| 
