Author Topic: Caption this: Sept. 11, 2007 (Read 2692 times)

Neubob · « **Reply #75 on:** September 13, 2007, 12:57:56 PM »

The enemy is the terrorist, the terrorist's family, friends and supporters--both fanatical and conservative--both active and passive.

The enemy is the family man at the head of the dinner table that nods silently and with satisfaction whenever he watches the evening news broadcast imagines of another American body being wheeled onto a plane.

The enemy is not just Bin Laden and his cohorts. Al-Queda is just the tip of the pyramid, and, if anything, just an opportunist taking advantage of a situation. The enemy is the base of the pyramid which creates all the emotional and spiritual support for every action perpetrated against Western Society on behalf of Allah.

But there is a bigger enemy too. An enemy much closer to home.

This enemy is in the grass roots. It is the new policy of treating those that want to kill you by pleasing and appeasing them, and apologizing for your own lack of understanding of their 'culture'.

**** their culture. They are the enemy.

The real enemy, I should say, is this new ideology that dictates that we, as the moral compass, can teach the murderers of our citizens to live and let live by example.

The point has been made, repeatedly, that our enemies, in the past, have been neutered and neutralized whenever we've shown the will to kill every last one. The fact that we have the means is clear.

The biggest enemy, simply put, is the belief that in a time of war, we can substitute good will for the will to achieve victory.

Shaky · « **Reply #76 on:** September 13, 2007, 01:12:47 PM »

BiGBMAW · « **Reply #77 on:** September 13, 2007, 01:24:07 PM »

russ....

You want to hide under a rock and say..I see noshing!!!

I guess we were totally wrong to be involved during WW2? in your view

If you belive we were..then everyone shoudl stop bothering to talk to you..since you have no idea how the world works,,and the nature of mankind

and there has been stated here a few times who USa's and westerns enemy is..If you dont understand it..then again..HT's line of clueless dolt..fits you perfectly

BiGBMAW · « **Reply #78 on:** September 13, 2007, 01:25:21 PM »

btw your a sympathizer and should be turned into the authoratah's

Yeager · « **Reply #79 on:** September 13, 2007, 01:30:35 PM »

this thread is cool

indy007 · « **Reply #80 on:** September 13, 2007, 01:31:28 PM »

WW2 does not go back far enough. Since Soviet was so kind as to bring up our founders wishes of non-interference... Lets jump back to 1801.

The First Barbary War

Quote

Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, although nominally governed by the Islamic Ottoman Empire, had been largely independent Muslim states since the 17th century. The monarchy of Morocco, which had been under its current government since 1666, was well known by the time of the Barbary Wars for supporting piracy.

Britain and France had come to uneasy ententes with the pirates; a combination of military might, diplomacy, and extorted payments had kept ships flying the Union Flag or French flag more or less safe from attack. As British colonists before 1776, American merchant vessels had enjoyed the protection of the Royal Navy. During the American Revolution, American ships came under the aegis of France due to a 1778 Treaty of Alliance between the two countries.

However, by 1783 America became solely responsible for the safety of its own commerce and citizens with the end of the Revolution. Without the means or the authority to field a naval force necessary to protect their ships in the Mediterranean, the nascent U.S. government took a pragmatic, but ultimately self-destructive route. In 1784, the United States Congress allocated money for payment of tribute to the pirates.

Use for the money came in 1785, when the Dey of Algiers took two American ships hostage and demanded US$60,000 in ransom for their crews. Then-ambassador to France Thomas Jefferson argued that conceding the ransom would only encourage more attacks ("Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute"). His objections fell on the deaf ears of an inexperienced American government too riven with domestic discord to make a strong show of force overseas. The U.S. paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. Payments in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Jefferson continued to argue for cessation of the tribute, with rising support from George Washington and others. With the recommissioning of the American navy in 1794 and the resulting increased firepower on the seas, it became more and more possible for America to say "no", although by now the long-standing habit of tribute was hard to overturn.

In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.

oh, and screw Islam.

Soviet · « **Reply #81 on:** September 13, 2007, 01:46:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Druss
Hey Soviet, what the hell makes YOU the expert on Bin Ladin, or Islam, or anything else for that matter. You write like you're typing from a pamphlet handed out a Party meeting or a collage campus.

Say you about to be murdered by a thug (just to take what you have or merely see the muscles in your face go slack), would you honestly meditate on the matter and decide that, while killing you is an atrocious act, you can understand and appreciate how your murder would seem like the right thing to do, from the thug's point of view.

BS!

I have to go puke now.

I think you're mistaken because I never said we shouldn't go after Bin Laden. What I am saying is that he needs to be punished for what he did to the United States. It's simple, if you do something you need to be held responsible, this is something I'm sure we can all agree on. What I'm saying though is that we can fight terrorism without ceding ANY of our civil liberties or without ground wars against countries when it's an individiual and his followers that caused the attacks on 9/11. Why do we have to give one single ounce of our freedoms away to attack this threat? Benjamin Franklin once said that "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security." If we lose our civil liberties we lose everything it is to be an American and everything my great grandparents came to this nation for. That's my point here. So please understand I am not advocating pacifism, I believe in a strong national DEFENSE not OFFENSE.

(Edit)(Addition)
I never stated I was an expert on Bin Laden, but that doesn't disqualify me from having an opinion and stating what I think about it. After all that's the point of free speech so that we can debate with one another without having to be afraid to state our opinion.

croduh · « **Reply #82 on:** September 13, 2007, 01:51:58 PM »

Allah Akbar?

BiGBMAW · « **Reply #83 on:** September 13, 2007, 01:57:37 PM »

best defense is a strong offense

so russian you want to wait to get attacked? I guess you are more of the pantent leather..then the General Patton

code pink has a new member

I recommend you go to the mid east...and just "talk"..Im sure they will want to listen.

Soviet · « **Reply #84 on:** September 13, 2007, 02:01:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BiGBMAW
best defense is a strong offense

so russian you want to wait to get attacked? I guess you are more of the pantent leather..then the General Patton

code pink has a new member

I recommend you go to the mid east...and just "talk"..Im sure they will want to listen.

Again, who are we going after? By invading Iraq all we did was create more terrorism and more terrorists. It was counter-productive. Saddam hated Islamic fundamentalists because most Islamic fundamentalists HATED Saddam. The issue here is that we're going after the wrong people. We need to go after Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, not soverign nations. These terrorist groups are outside any government. Engaging in preemptive war against nations has NOTHING to do with the war on terror.

Most importantly we as the American people should never cede one ounce of our civil liberties to the government for defense, never, it's unconstitutional and it's un-American.

Airscrew · « **Reply #85 on:** September 13, 2007, 02:18:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BiGBMAW
best defense is a strong offense

Boot to the head!...

JB88 · « **Reply #86 on:** September 13, 2007, 02:19:46 PM »

so few have learned so much tai kwan leap in so little time.

Neubob · « **Reply #87 on:** September 13, 2007, 02:25:01 PM »

Yes, Soviet, giving up civil liberties sucks, and I am not, nor was ever a big fan of Bush...

However, who said that keeping our civil liberties and waging total war against every last apologist(anyone who thinks that understanding their culture is more important than caving in their skull) and anti-Western Muslim out there were mutually exclusive?

Keep the civil liberties. Just keep the Minutemen fueled and the B2s airborne while you're at it.

Soviet · « **Reply #88 on:** September 13, 2007, 02:28:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Neubob
Yes, Soviet, giving up civil liberties sucks, and I am not, nor was ever a big fan of Bush...

However, who said that keeping our civil liberties and waging total war against every last apologist(anyone who thinks that understanding their culture is more important than caving in their skull) and anti-Western Muslim out there were mutually exclusive?

Keep the civil liberties. Just keep the Minutemen fueled and the B2s airborne while you're at it.

Have you ever read the patriot act or the executive orders? I think you should. Things aren't as free as they once were and that's a fact.

Neubob · « **Reply #89 on:** September 13, 2007, 02:37:26 PM »

Like I said, I am not a fan of this administration. I never was. The policies in put in place during his tenure are not the smartest in my opinion.

The gist of my post is that regardless of this administration's mistakes, treating adversarial Islamists with anything but a swift and unconditional ax-blow to the neck is itself suicide.

Taking time to appreciate their culture as they plot is suicide.

Talking of respect and embracing this 'religion of peace' while their religious leaders preach death to the west is suicide.

Disliking Bush, and wishing for the enemy's eradication are not mutually exclusive.

As for the culture of Islam... Yeah, I'd love to respect and learn about it. Only I prefer to do it while I'm still alive. If they all have to die for me to live, I'm sure there will be no shortage of books about how nice and fluffy a religion it was.