Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hortlund on July 25, 2007, 06:43:52 AM
-
San Diego, July 7. A U.S. person — either a citizen or a foreigner legally here — checked baggage containing two ice packs covered in duct tape. The ice packs had clay inside them rather than the normal blue gel.
Milwaukee, June 4. A U.S. person’s carryon baggage contained wire coil wrapped around a possible initiator, an electrical switch, batteries, three tubes and two blocks of cheese. The bulletin said block cheese has a consistency similar to some explosives.
Houston, Nov. 8, 2006. A U.S. person’s checked baggage contained a plastic bag with a 9-volt battery, wires, a block of brown clay-like minerals and pipes.
Baltimore, Sept. 16, 2006. A couple’s checked baggage contained a plastic bag with a block of processed cheese taped to another plastic bag holding a cellular phone charger.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19943138/
-
it is just a matter of time
once the dems pull us out of Iraq, they, the cheekboness, will be able to concentrate on the next attack on US soil ....
,,,, and of course it will be Bush's fault when it happens...
unlike the US, our enemy has time and patience on their side
-
i always wrap my cheese in duct tape, keeps it fresh.:lol
-
Looks like the are into blowing up big cities full of blue voters and gun control advocates.
lazs
-
They already had a dry run on some Boston bridges a few months ago, but they screwed up and left the lights connected allowing us to foil the evil doers.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Eagler
it is just a matter of time
once the dems pull us out of Iraq, they, the cheekboness, will be able to concentrate on the next attack on US soil ....
,,,, and of course it will be Bush's fault when it happens...
unlike the US, our enemy has time and patience on their side
Wow, you actually believe that "they'll follow us home" stuff?
By this logic US forces must stay in Iraq forever to ensure that only our troops get killed. Even if 10,000 more US troops die until Iraq is secure, it wont matter... History tells us this endeavor will FAIL. I wish Bush had a brilliant plan.. heck I wish he had a plan at all, or a clue.
Iran was already "secure" with a strong military and intact infrastructure when the US installed the Shah of Iran.. the US bolstered Iran's military and intelligence services with billions. The CIA created & trained SAVIC (aka Savik), known by people in the mid east as worse than Nazi gestapo.
No matter how hard the US tried, the people of the mid east, and in Iran, rejected the US puppet and kicked the Shah out.
So I ask you, why, or HOW, will the US succeed in Iraq when we failed in Iran?
The people of the mid east didn't want us there before, which is partly why 9/11 happened in the 1st place.. and now that Bush has poked the hornets nest... I can only imagine now they're really pissedoff.
Edit:
Declassified CIA documents relating to Iran:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/iran-cia-intro.pdf
Speaking of "terrorism", the CIA engineered the bombing a cleric's home in a disinformation campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's .gov.. isn't that what Bush now calls "state sponsored terrorism"?? if the CIA does it, it's justified... if Iran does it; its "terror"... is it any wonder they don't trust a damn thing the US has to say
-
"They" already paid 2 visits to the WTC before iraq, or had you forgotten. The first was a successfuly bomb blast in the basement that barely failed to cause significant damage and I'm sure you are aware of the other. Threats of similar and other attacks on US soil have been made repeatedly, why do you think they won't try again?
-
eagler
Sorry mate but it has nothing to do with when the dems do this or when the dems do that , for that matter i doubt it would matter if the republicans did the same either , the terrorist couldnt give a shi#$e about who is in power only about striking it's percieved enemy ,perhaps if you all concentrated on that rather than getting ready to lay the blame on someone who isnt yr particluar political persuasion you might foil the terrorists.They allready see the west as a failure with a lack of will power.
They are going to strike again and it dont matter who is in power .
-
You can't stop a determined killer. 2hr security checks at airports probably aren't accomplishing much, but since attacks not occuring isn't quantifiable it's impossible to tell.
-
Simple solution... the name requires a mouthful of phlegm to pronounce, they get a body cavity search and no carry-on luggage and they are only allowed to exit the country, not enter it... eliminates 99%+ of the threat.
-
I had "Dry Runs" once....
Spent all day on the toilet passing dust.
:huh
Mac
-
It's great that they can report on the four incidents over the last 11 months because they found them......how many made it through that they can't report on?
Terrorist dry runs or stupid citizens playing games.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
it is just a matter of time
once the dems pull us out of Iraq, they, the cheekboness, will be able to concentrate on the next attack on US soil ....
,,,, and of course it will be Bush's fault when it happens...
unlike the US, our enemy has time and patience on their side
Forget Dems and Repubs, both are just a bunch of do nothing morons!
IRAQ has used valuable monies and manpower that we could have been using to completely secured our borders and ports of entry! Wished we would have just focused on Bin Laden and securing our borders. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
Simple solution... the name requires a mouthful of phlegm to pronounce, they get a body cavity search and no carry-on luggage and they are only allowed to exit the country, not enter it... eliminates 99%+ of the threat.
Of course they could just confuse everybody then and use a name like, ohh McVeigh
-
Originally posted by JimBear
Of course they could just confuse everybody then and use a name like, ohh McVeigh
One nutjob compared with millions in this islamic fascist movement who want to kill us, dont mind losing their own life in the process and aren't shy about admitting it??? They are even touted as heros in their homeland and in mosques around the world. EVERYONE agreed mcveigh had to die!
I'd sit next to 20 guys named mcveigh in a plane before i'd get in with a crowd of middle easterners.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
Simple solution... the name requires a mouthful of phlegm to pronounce, they get a body cavity search and no carry-on luggage and they are only allowed to exit the country, not enter it... eliminates 99%+ of the threat.
There are more Muslims of non Middle Eastern origin than you can count.
But don't let me shatter your illusion that racial profiling will make you any safer.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
There are more Muslims of non Middle Eastern origin than you can count.
But don't let me shatter your illusion that racial profiling will make you any safer.
And how many of those non middle eastern origin moslems have been involved in 3-11, Madrid, or 9-11-type attacks?
But dont let me shatter your illusion that racial profiling doesnt work.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Forget Dems and Repubs, both are just a bunch of do nothing morons!
IRAQ has used valuable monies and manpower that we could have been using to completely secured our borders and ports of entry! Wished we would have just focused on Bin Laden and securing our borders. :rolleyes:
wait until the dems run the show ...
you will see the difference btwn them and the republicans as it comes to our security ..
guess you have forgot 92 - 00 whereas our lack of action lead to every increasing attacks topping off with 911
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And how many of those non middle eastern origin moslems have been involved in 3-11, Madrid, or 9-11-type attacks?
But dont let me shatter your illusion that racial profiling doesnt work.
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/08/RichardReid_374x450.jpg)
(http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030807/w5.jpg)
(http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200606/r90981_271230.jpg)
One must remember that the biggest muslim population is not in a Middle Eastern country.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Maverick
"They" already paid 2 visits to the WTC before iraq, or had you forgotten. The first was a successfuly bomb blast in the basement that barely failed to cause significant damage and I'm sure you are aware of the other. Threats of similar and other attacks on US soil have been made repeatedly, why do you think they won't try again?
Difference is when they do succeed in doing it again. And it is a when not an if.
All the nay sayers on Iraq are going ot say its because we went to Iraq.
Im aleady hearing things from people I know like "We went into Iraq and NOW the Arabs hate us"
:rolleyes:
Duhhhh Im sorry! I completely forget. Exactly how much did they love us before?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
wait until the dems run the show ...
you will see the difference btwn them and the republicans as it comes to our security ..
guess you have forgot 92 - 00 whereas our lack of action lead to every increasing attacks topping off with 911
I pretty much do not like either party, most up there are controlled by special interest groups and their pocket book!
I do know that the current adm, fudged up with going into IRAQ!
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Difference is when they do succeed in doing it again. And it is a when not an if.
All the nay sayers on Iraq are going ot say its because we went to Iraq.
Im aleady hearing things from people I know like "We went into Iraq and NOW the Arabs hate us"
:rolleyes:
Duhhhh Im sorry! I completely forget. Exactly how much did they love us before?
The reason why the "fight for terrorism" is in Iraq is a result of us invading that country. If we hadn't, there would be no Al-queda in Iraq. That group was created as a direct result of our invasion and the vacuum it created that let scores of foreign jihadists to enter the country.
You honestly think that fighting in Iraq has done anything to make this country or the world safer from terrorism? Especially when the terrorists behind 9/11 aren't even in Iraq?
If we were truly serious about the war on terror, we have concentrated in killing them in Afghanistan. All we did is create another front and a lot more terrorists.
I'm sure I'm not the only Rebublican to feel this way.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/08/RichardReid_374x450.jpg)
(http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030807/w5.jpg)
(http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200606/r90981_271230.jpg)
One must remember that the biggest muslim population is not in a Middle Eastern country.
ack-ack
LOL you think those guys would not be profiled? :rofl :aok
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
I do know that the current adm, fudged up with going into IRAQ!
if we didn't, the left and their buds in the media would be screaming for us TO invade.
I'm fine with a strong US presence in Iraq. I know many others who feel the same way.
-
i too am glad saddam has assumed room temp... he was a stalin/hitler in the making... I say taking him out would have been like someone knocking off hitler in '31. He didnt live long enough to have the weapons to fulfill his 'vision' for Iraq. I think the administration has blundered by fighting the war half-heartedly... We should be scorching the streets of the neighborhoods that harbor our enemies.
Right now, I am fine with the various terror groups operating in iraq, it limits their resources (mainly human) to fight us here. Think of iraq as our own "terrorist a-hole bugzapper" they come from all over the world just to die in droves... I am fine with that.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
if we didn't, the left and their buds in the media would be screaming for us TO invade.
I'm fine with a strong US presence in Iraq. I know many others who feel the same way.
Although you refuse to accept a "US presence" in the region already failed once, and Bush is following a failed blueprint. There is no getting around the history lesson the US .gov learned once in Iran... pretending it never happened might work for some here in the US, but people in the mid east certainly haven't forgotten... it's more of a rally cry to them then a distant memory.
"Those who don’t learn from the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat them"
-
Originally posted by AWMac
I had "Dry Runs" once....
Spent all day on the toilet passing dust.
:huh
Mac
at your age that's hardly a suprise :)
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Although you refuse to accept a "US presence" in the region already failed once, and Bush is following a failed blueprint. There is no getting around the history lesson the US .gov learned once in Iran... pretending it never happened might work for some here in the US, but people in the mid east certainly haven't forgotten... it's more of a rally cry to them then a distant memory.
"Those who don’t learn from the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat them"
Could you please be explicit in what you are saying here. In particular the failed first US presence part, or are you just considering the shah situation as a "US presence"
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Milwaukee, June 4. A U.S. person’s carryon baggage contained wire coil wrapped around a possible initiator, an electrical switch, batteries, three tubes and two blocks of cheese. The bulletin said block cheese has a consistency similar to some explosives.
Thank god it wasn't limberger.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Although you refuse to accept a "US presence" in the region already failed once, and Bush is following a failed blueprint. There is no getting around the history lesson the US .gov learned once in Iran... pretending it never happened might work for some here in the US, but people in the mid east certainly haven't forgotten... it's more of a rally cry to them then a distant memory.
"Those who don’t learn from the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat them"
how has it failed when it is not over yet?
it's 95% politics at this point .. a way for the left to try and win in 08, nothing more.
if the leaders had your mindset, we'd never won either world war or korea .. you sound like you are cheering for another Vietnam .. you should re-read your own quote
-
Way to go, guys! Take a serious issue and serious threat and argue about which political party could eff it up worse than the other as a solution.
Just like C-SPAN.
-
Whoops!
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070725-1207-bn25false.html
Report of terrorist 'dry run' at Lindbergh a false alarm
-
Originally posted by Shamus
They already had a dry run on some Boston bridges a few months ago, but they screwed up and left the lights connected allowing us to foil the evil doers.
shamus
you mean these?
(http://www.shandyking.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/adultswim.jpg)
Those were a promotional thing from Cartoon Network that people went overboard about....
Richard Reid almost detonated the shoe bomb in his attempt didn't he?
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
Those were a promotional thing from Cartoon Network that people went overboard about....
Raider, REALLY?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
LOL you think those guys would not be profiled? :rofl :aok
You think airport security would give someone from Indosia a second glance other than to make sure their papers are in order? To most Americans, the face of a terrorist is an Arab one, not Asian or a mixed race individual from the Caribbean. Why else do you think Al-queda has been trying to recruit more non-Arab muslims. Because they would have a better chance of getting through than an Arab or an Arab looking terrorist.
If terrorism was only done by Arabs from the Middle East, then profiling would work since all you're looking for are Arabs that fit the description. But when you're against something that spawns different races, profiling isn't going to be very effective.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
You think airport security would give someone from Indosia a second glance other than to make sure their papers are in order? To most Americans, the face of a terrorist is an Arab one, not Asian or a mixed race individual from the Caribbean. Why else do you think Al-queda has been trying to recruit more non-Arab muslims. Because they would have a better chance of getting through than an Arab or an Arab looking terrorist.
If terrorism was only done by Arabs from the Middle East, then profiling would work since all you're looking for are Arabs that fit the description. But when you're against something that spawns different races, profiling isn't going to be very effective.
ack-ack
Terrorism is done by brown people, often but not always with beard. There is your racial profile.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
You think airport security would give someone from Indosia a second glance other than to make sure their papers are in order? To most Americans, the face of a terrorist is an Arab one, not Asian or a mixed race individual from the Caribbean. Why else do you think Al-queda has been trying to recruit more non-Arab muslims. Because they would have a better chance of getting through than an Arab or an Arab looking terrorist.
If terrorism was only done by Arabs from the Middle East, then profiling would work since all you're looking for are Arabs that fit the description. But when you're against something that spawns different races, profiling isn't going to be very effective.
ack-ack
Good point.............Profiling Does Not Work, creates tunnel vision. Good example is when women started being used as bombers.........caught everyone off guard.............expensive lesson in errors of use of profiling techniques.
As blind as we've made ourselves with profiling, if I were the bad guy (that ought to get me phone tapped :O ) I'd be stateside already, recruiting white gramma's and grampa's and send them abroad.
Profiling Bad.
-
Originally posted by LTARokit
...recruiting white gramma's and grampa's and send them abroad.
LOL yeah...how well do you think such a terrorist recruiting campaign would work?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Terrorism is done by brown people, often but not always with beard. There is your racial profile.
LOL! You don't goose step around the bush do you? So, anyone with a tan is fair game?
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
LOL yeah...how well do you think such a terrorist recruiting campaign would work?
Worked on David Hicks.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/22/David_Hicks.jpg/180px-David_Hicks.jpg)
He's an example of why profiling isn't effective.
ack-ack
-
(http://greatdivide.typepad.com/across_the_great_divide/images/2007/06/02/blinders.jpg)
-
profiling is a good place to start... not end.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
profiling is a good place to start... not end.
lazs
Exactly... Watch everyone, but ESPECIALLY those with the damned deadly track records.
-
As Spain found out the hard way, staying in or leaving Iraq doesn't make a bit of difference to the Jihadis. In fact, after promising no more attacks in Spain if they would just withdraw, Al Qaeda has continued to be active in Spain declaring that: "We will not be in peace until we set our foot again in our beloved al-Andalus" just a little while ago. In other words, its not over until Spain is an Islamic nation ruled by Sharia. In fact, its not over until all the world is part of the Dar-El-Islam, the Caliphate is established, and all the non-muslim apes and pigs are subjugated or eliminated. As such, there is no "end date" for what we incorrectly call "the war on terror" from the Jihadi perspective it goes on until total victory is achieved. So Western nations withdrawing from here or invading over there will never end the conflict, the only value these actions have is as they help or hinder one side or the other.
Now as far as the non-Muslim nations are concerned, from 611 to about 1700 we had a period of constant war with the Jihadis as Islam started and then massively expanded throughout the Middle East, Near East, Indian Subcontinent, Eastern Europe, Iberian Peninsula and Africa via wars of conquest and through the Pacific via trade and alliances. Generally speaking, once those areas were integrated into the Dar-El-Islam, they never left it. At several points, Western Europe was almost conquered by the Islamic Jihad. From 1700 to the mid 1900s we enjoyed a brief respite because, for the most part, Islam was not present in the West and the Western powers were essentially "sitting" on the Islamic world, both by propping up the Ottomans (who provided the illusion of caliphate and the suppression of pan-Islamic radicals) and colonial rule. That situation changed dramatically with the end of the Ottoman Empire and Western colonial rule and the beginning of reverse colonization via Islamic immigration into Europe and the United States from these former colonies. In essence, we hit the pause button on the Jihad for about 200 years, but now the "PLAY" button has definitely been pressed and is even more dangerous because the Jihad is now being waged mostly via "asymmetrical" warfare, and utilizing fully what they perceive as our own weaknesses and we would call “civilization, ethics, and the rule of law.”
Leave Iraq or stay, leave Afghanistan or stay, the war will continue because it is an integral part of the comprehensive ideology that is Islam. Peace for them is achieved through complete victory, hence the Al Qaeda statement that there will not be peace in that area until Spain ceases to exist as Spain and become Al-Andalusia once again. As such our options are contain, eliminate or convert. Co-exist is not an option they offer. Personally, I don’t believe we have the will or the ability to do any of these, so it’s going to be a very difficult and horrifying century to say the least.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
LOL yeah...how well do you think such a terrorist recruiting campaign would work?
Heck Hortland, recruiting someone isn't the problem Bro. You can always find someone to sell a product to, regardless age, race, gender......................y a just have to know how to sell it.
The bigger issue at hand IMHO is how to teach the enforcers how not to fall into the "Profiling" catigory. Too much it missed when you start looking in only one direction, bad thing about it.........profiling can become habitual. Been there done it, out of 12 years, marked unit, drug interdiction (lookin for the transporters) my first two years were spent profiling. Results, popping small time users, small time sellers. Fortunitly I had someone point out my bad habits of profiling (Called a Courtroom Judge lol).
Once the profiling stopped, target aquirement greatly improved...................to include the lumbering RV, driven by none other than "Grandpa & Grandma" gray hairs, comin back from vactions (was one of the better busts :D ) lol.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Leave Iraq or stay, leave Afghanistan or stay, the war will continue because it is an integral part of the comprehensive ideology that is Islam. Peace for them is achieved through complete victory, hence the Al Qaeda statement that there will not be peace in that area until Spain ceases to exist as Spain and become Al-Andalusia once again. As such our options are contain, eliminate or convert. Co-exist is not an option they offer. Personally, I don’t believe we have the will or the ability to do any of these, so it’s going to be a very difficult and horrifying century to say the least.
word......fight, die, or convert, it's your choice.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Could you please be explicit in what you are saying here. In particular the failed first US presence part, or are you just considering the shah situation as a "US presence"
I call it a "US presence" because thats how my soon to be x-wifes family Iranian born family characterize it. It's not a reference to military occupation, more to do with the the people knowing it was the Brits & CIA that overthrew the Iranian gov, from then on it was considered a "US puppet" by Iranians, and a "US presence" by other countries. Kind of how we considered N Vietnam a Communist / Russian / Soviet presence... the Russians had everything but troops in N Vietnam, like the US did in Iran.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
how has it failed when it is not over yet?
it's 95% politics at this point .. a way for the left to try and win in 08, nothing more.
if the leaders had your mindset, we'd never won either world war or korea .. you sound like you are cheering for another Vietnam .. you should re-read your own quote
Yeah, yeah, yeah... I cheer, great.
Please tell me how a US puppet gov will survive in the mid east, when it was rejected in Iran? Is there some brilliance in the Bush plan to avoid the failures of the past? (no) Iraq will be just like Nam, we'll leave a govt just weak enough to collapse, only after years and years of debate & stalemate. No way we could kill or bomb the N. Vietnamese into submission, it aint happening with the Muslims either. In Korea at least we had the S Korean people on our side.
The CIA, and brits, installed a US puppet in Iran; rejected. It wasn't just a handful of rowdy college students who overthrew the US backed gov either, all the reasons are fascinating reading should you ever decide to look into it, but I think you'll find lots of outside influence, and $$, from Arabs & Muslims all over the region tipped the scales to oust the US presence.
Why wont that happen in Iraq? oh wait, it is happening. So how is our military going to stop it?, its impossible to kill or detain every angry at America Muslim / Arab in the mid east... you are aware they don't like us very much right?
Iraq, sadly, it in smack in the middle of a crap sandwich of countries full of religious wackos who are willing to die. They will, use, and have used, surrounding countries, and Pakistan, like the N. Vietnamese used Laos / Cambodia as "rat lines" to undermine our efforts. Nixon wanted to go into Cambodia, Bush wants to go after Iran.. hum, no new thinking here.
By the way, what would you do if some foreign troops put your family in Abu Ghraib, detained your brother / friends / family for 15 months with no charges, stormed your house at will, as well as turning off the electricity, flush toilet, phones, garbage collection... maybe killed a few people you know? Basically reduced your neighborhood to a giant pile of lawless death rubble... for FIVE YEARS?
I'd fight back and get some payback, not for any cause.. but for my family / friends and frustration... how about you? would you let some foreigners walk all over you?
-
x0847Marine, i see your from California, did you go to Berkeley?
-
x0847marine,
Serious question for you:
Should we abandon all fight against terrorism?
If your answer is yes, then what do you think the consequences of such action will be?
-
Originally posted by john9001
x0847Marine, i see your from California, did you go to Berkeley?
nah, he has the inside track on the me .. he has the wife ack pov
-
TSA, you guys are doing a hellofajob!
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Travel/story?id=3418155&page=1
"Do you know Osama bin Laden?" And who says the art of skilled interrogation is dead?
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
The reason why the "fight for terrorism" is in Iraq is a result of us invading that country. If we hadn't, there would be no Al-queda in Iraq. That group was created as a direct result of our invasion and the vacuum it created that let scores of foreign jihadists to enter the country.
You honestly think that fighting in Iraq has done anything to make this country or the world safer from terrorism? Especially when the terrorists behind 9/11 aren't even in Iraq?
If we were truly serious about the war on terror, we have concentrated in killing them in Afghanistan. All we did is create another front and a lot more terrorists.
I'm sure I'm not the only Rebublican to feel this way.
ack-ack
We killed all the ones in Afghanistan, the rest ran across the border into Pakistan...and yup, Saddam kept a tight leash on Iraq, but it's not like they would LEAVE if we quit--the ensuing slaughter would be our fault and no one else's, and Sally Struthers could beg to feed the children...it would be wonderful
-
Originally posted by Eagler
nah, he has the inside track on the me .. he has the wife ack pov
That does explain a lot of his posts.
-
ack ack.. I agree that the reason the islamofacists are in iraq is because we are there..
They have no choice. There are not that many of em if you consider them a percent of the total muslim population.. they are getting kicked out of most real muslim countries so they have a real stake in making iraq their home.
I say that fighting them anywhere in a arab country is fine.. any place is as good as another.. they have to come to us.
If we leave and they run the place then they have a base. They can spend their energies on planning world wide terror.
They won't go away unless we give em everything they want... nothing less will do. ever.
Everything they want is our destruction and their rule.
lazs
-
they are like roaches ...
can you ever kill every roach?
wouldn't you rather have them in your garage than your kitchen or bathroom?
just because you will never kill everyone of them, do you not continue to exterminate them?
(http://samueljscott.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/hamas2.jpg) = (http://www.ibdhost.com/demo/gallery/albums/bugs/cockroach.jpg)
-
Eagler: The first step is always to dehumanize the enemy. Now, you can do things you otherwise wouldn't, like kill their children, because "they'll just grow up to be more enemies". Is that your assertion?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
TSA, you guys are doing a hellofajob!
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Travel/story?id=3418155&page=1
"Do you know Osama bin Laden?" And who says the art of skilled interrogation is dead?
They should have water boarded the old broad, then they would have gotten the truth.
shamus
-
iraq was an ethical war... just look at where the architects are today.
-
Originally posted by Torque
iraq was an ethical war... just look at where the architects are today.
Congress?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Eagler: The first step is always to dehumanize the enemy. Now, you can do things you otherwise wouldn't, like kill their children, because "they'll just grow up to be more enemies". Is that your assertion?
CB
If someone is of the mindset that blowing up a bus/cafe/night club of innocent ppl is to be praised and admired - they are not "human" to me as the nazis running the gas chambers were not imo "human" either
if they brainwash their children into thinking they need to live long enough to strap a bomb on themselves and blow up peaceful women and children, then they signed the death warrants on their kids, I did not.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, Eagler, but it sounds as if you're essentially advocating a type of genocide/pogrom. I can't see how killing 5 year old children is anything but morally abhorrent.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
We killed all the ones in Afghanistan, the rest ran across the border into Pakistan...and yup, Saddam kept a tight leash on Iraq, but it's not like they would LEAVE if we quit--the ensuing slaughter would be our fault and no one else's, and Sally Struthers could beg to feed the children...it would be wonderful
We did? Better tell it to that Norwegian, French and British soldier that were just killed a couple of days ago.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Correct me if I'm wrong, Eagler, but it sounds as if you're essentially advocating a type of genocide/pogrom. I can't see how killing 5 year old children is anything but morally abhorrent.
The Islamic cheekboness are the ones pushing for genocide of the Jewish ppl
I'm not advocating anything, just saying when the heart of a child is turned to stone it is not the heart of a child.
Makes you wonder about the women and children that are killed when Israel takes down a building to get to the terrorist that are living there. Pictures like the one above and many. many others on the net somehow make those tragedies easier to swallow..
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Correct me if I'm wrong, Eagler, but it sounds as if you're essentially advocating a type of genocide/pogrom. I can't see how killing 5 year old children is anything but morally abhorrent.
tell that to the islamofacists, go ahead, tell them.:furious
-
John9001, it sounds as if you're suggesting we set our moral compass by the actions of those we abhor.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
John9001, it sounds as if you're suggesting we set our moral compass by the actions of those we abhor.
i'm suggesting you give your moral guidance to the terriorsts, not us. Tell them to stop killing kids.
-
You've just advocated killing their kids, and you've defended it. Now, you're trying to change the subject, that suggests a certain squirreliness on the subject.
Tell me, if a 5 year old boy is standing in front of you, and you know that he's been told that when he grows up, he should martyr himself, would you aim and fire your rifle into his little body?
If your arguments are internally consistent and you're not trying to weasel out of things, the answer should be a clear "yes".
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You've just advocated killing their kids, and you've defended it. Now, you're trying to change the subject, that suggests a certain squirreliness on the subject.
Tell me, if a 5 year old boy is standing in front of you, and you know that he's been told that when he grows up, he should martyr himself, would you aim and fire your rifle into his little body?
If your arguments are internally consistent and you're not trying to weasel out of things, the answer should be a clear "yes".
I think you're wrong. He clearly said you should tell the terrorists to stop killing children. You might want to see it differently, since he doesn't agree with you. But I can't see where he said he'd advocate killing children. It just isn't there.
-
No, you're right, it was Eagler who described children with a "heart turned to stone" that could be killed with a clear conscience. Sorry John9001, I mixed you two up, and that wasn't fair.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
No, you're right, it was Eagler who described children with a "heart turned to stone" that could be killed with a clear conscience. Sorry John9001, I mixed you two up, and that wasn't fair.
Again, I do not think Eagler is advocating killing children. I think he's advocating dealing with the people who would teach a child to do that by whatever means necessary.
By the way, it was common, and accepted, during World War II, to dehumanize the Nazis and the Japanese soldiers. I'm not at all convinced it was a bad thing, either. And I certainly do not think the terrorists are any better an example of human being than Hitler, Tojo, or any of the others.
-
If the Taliban could, they would be worse than Hitler ever thought about being.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
We did? Better tell it to that Norwegian, French and British soldier that were just killed a couple of days ago.
ack-ack
That was my point...they lick their wounds in Pakistan, Spring comes, they run across the border into Afghanistan, blow watermelon up, and run back across the border. Can you say Cambodia?
-
TSA knew 'dry run' terror alerts were bogus
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/TSA_dry_run_terror_alerts_bogus_0727.html
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
John9001, it sounds as if you're suggesting we set our moral compass by the actions of those we abhor.
Exactly, it is all they understand... fight fire with even hotter fire.
-
Mr No Name, do you propose killing their young children?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Mr No Name, do you propose killing their young children?
mr no name is not the one strapping bombs on young childern and telling them to be "martyrs" for islam.
again, you are preaching to the wrong people, talk to the terrorists.
-
xmarine I think you fail to realize the Shah in power was much better for the U.S. (and incidentally the entire middle east region) than the Shah out of power. It was the 'genius' Jimmy Carter that brought the Shah down. U.S. support at that point would have avoided the situation we are in now. Its amazing how the U.S. political arena can influence events around the world but it is a fact that it does. So when morons like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi go out of their way to attack a sitting U.S. President and his policies while a liberal Congress attempts to set a new precedent concerning which branch of the government actually commands the military our children are dying in Iraq.
You speak of history and history precedence and yet there is no precedence for our withdrawal at such an early point after liberation. Yet Congress holds the President to demands that history indicates will result in failure. Why does Congress want us to fail in Iraq? For petty reasons. Political reasons. Reasons that will allow them to hold Bush responsible but reasons that will ensure that the U.S. is hit again. They refuse to see that because they are ignorant and actually believe the compassionate line they feed us all the time.
I expect them to get their way. I expect we will be hit again. I expect a large faction of Muslims living here to rear up and strike out at us from within. I also expect the backlash to cause liberals to be held responsible in the end. They have power for now and we are not safe because of it.
-
Originally posted by Chalenge
xmarine I think you fail to realize the Shah in power was much better for the U.S. (and incidentally the entire middle east region) than the Shah out of power. It was the 'genius' Jimmy Carter that brought the Shah down. U.S. support at that point would have avoided the situation we are in now.
It wasn't Carter that caused the downfall of the Shah. The Peacock Throne died as a direct result of the Shah and his cronies. It was the backing of the US that allowed the regime to last as long as it did.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Mr No Name, do you propose killing their young children?
YES (In caps so there is no misunderstanding), we have to fight the war on the same level the enemy fights it. When you fight a war with PC gloves on it is perceived as a weakness. They must know our resolve is as strong as theirs and treachery will be met with equal or greater treachery.
War is a nasty business, preferably avoided altogether but IF you are going to fight, always go all out to WIN.
-
I think that's abhorrent, and I bet there are plenty of folks here who quietly agree with you but don't want to say it. There certainly isn't an upwelling of protest against the idea, that's pretty telling about how 'civilized' the christian contingency is.
-
Don't kill the children, kill the ones teaching them. And killing 16 years olds isn't killing children, childhood stops the moment you proclaim that you will die for Allah, and strap that bomb on. Once you know right from wrong, you are no longer innocent, and no longer a child.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
that's pretty telling about how 'civilized' the christian contingency is.
carefully, not everyone!
but those who act (or would like to act) on the same level as this murders fit there very well.
Zombies.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Once you know right from wrong, you are no longer innocent, and no longer a child.
and that happens at what age?
At the naive age of 16 ?
-
Maybe I have it wrong ack-ack but as I recall it was Carter that called for the release of prisoners of the 'religious' persuasion. His form of foreign policy was terrible and to look back you might think he took advice from... well its history now and too late to change matters.
-
Funny, still no objection to Mr No Name's explicit advocacy of killing young muslim children. The silence is... dare I say it... deafening.
-
War is hell son...
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Funny, still no objection to Mr No Name's explicit advocacy of killing young muslim children. The silence is... dare I say it... deafening.
Tom Tancredo said to threaten nuking Mecca if we get another major event on US soil....(I've yet to hear his exact phrasing) might give them pause
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
and that happens at what age?
At the naive age of 16 ?
Once your old enough to know right from wrong, without your parents telling you, you are no longer innocent. When you kill a man, if you are 16, 12, 36, it's all the same. You did what you knew was wrong. Unless you are in the right, in which case you explain yourself. Maybe I'm still living in 1857, but it should still be this way. There weren't as many crooks then as there are now, so they must have been doing something right.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
it is just a matter of time
once the dems pull us out of Iraq, they, the cheekboness, will be able to concentrate on the next attack on US soil ....
,,,, and of course it will be Bush's fault when it happens...
unlike the US, our enemy has time and patience on their side
You know I get so sick of hearing you right wingers act as if Democrats have no balls and are weak on terrorism.
You want the facts?
Less than a year after the Dems took control of Congress and the Senate, they passed legislation to fund the scanning that was suggested by the 9/11 commission at both our ports and for cargo planes entering the US.
Despite Republicans holding all the power the last 6 years since 9/11 they haven't managed to do this. Why? Because the Democrats put it as a top priority. So they didn't talk about doing it they "did it".
Also this week Democrats managed to get an extra 3 billion in funding for our US/Mexican boarder. That mean more boarder patrol troops on the ground "protecting our boarders".
Bush had planned to veto it because he thought it was too much money. Yea the guy that write blank checks to haliburton nonstop but an extra 3 billion was too much to spend on boarder security.
So once again we see Republicans talking the talk, meanwhile the Democrats are the ones walking the walk. Your Tough on Terror Republicans are just tough on terror when it's comes to talking like usual they never have any action to back the talk.
It's always the same, you want to listen to a bunch of talk about getting things done, you elect Republicans. However if you actually want to get anything done you better talk to the Democrats.
-
Hello Chairboy,
Originally posted by Chairboy
I think that's abhorrent, and I bet there are plenty of folks here who quietly agree with you but don't want to say it. There certainly isn't an upwelling of protest against the idea, that's pretty telling about how 'civilized' the christian contingency is.
I haven't really been following this thread for a couple of days, but I was a little bit appalled to read that you think that if the so-called Christian contingent on the board doesn't loudly declaim every wrong, silly, or sinful statement made on the BB that it is tacitly endorsing it. I wouldn't dream of applying the same reasoning to the atheists on the board, especially because I have no idea who the bona fide "members" of each so-called contingent are, and because I don't expect everyone to monitor every thread. Anyway, Chair after several years here of posting on war and related topics, I hope you'd realize that I don't subscribe to genocide or total war theories, nor do I believe that one sin ever justifies another or that the children must pay for the sins of their parents.
As I have posted before, I heartily affirm the rules of land warfare, and subscribe to just war theory. Here is a general 7 point outline I use in teaching Just War Theory which sums up my own belief:
The general rules of a "just war" are:
1. Just cause. All active aggression is condemned; only a defensive war is legitimate. However, if it is obvious that the other side is clearly preparing for aggression based on solid evidence and past performance a justifiable "first strike" would be allowable.
2. Just intention. The only legitimate intention of a just war is to eventually and, as soon as practicable, secure a just peace. Wars of economic gain, religious expansion/control, revenge, or ideology are unacceptable.
3. Last resort. War can only be begun when all good faith discussions, compromises and negotiations have failed. Again this is hard to gauge if one side is not honestly participating in the effort.
4. Government involvement and formal declaration. This is the action of government not individuals. Some sort of "state of war" must be clearly declared. In this day of terrorist organizations that are not under a government clouds this; states supporting such terrorist organizations would then be held responsible for terrorist acts.
5. Limited objectives. If the purpose of war is ultimately peace, then total destruction of the nation is not just. Only narrow war-fighting objectives that bring the war to a successful conclusion are legitimate. Blanket bombing, gassing, the destruction of a people's way of life is not warranted.
6. Proportional means. Is tied closed to #5, the type of weaponry and tactics employed should be limited to secure the limited objectives (repelling the aggressor, deterring future illegal attacks, removing specific aggressive individuals/groups from power).
7. Protection for non-combatants. Since war fighting is a declared, official act of organized government, only those who are active agents of that government (its fighting soldiers--not POWs, casualties, civilian non-participants) may fight. Others should be protected from aggressive acts of violence.
(These general "just war" guidelines were taken from an article by Arthur F. Holmes, "The Just War," 1981.).
More Specifically, you can find sermons preached on the subject of War at our church at this link:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?keyword=providencepca&keyworddesc=&currSection=sermonssource&AudioOnly=true&sourceOnly=true&subsetcat=topics&subsetitem=bearing+the+sword
I think you'll find that at no point have I ever endorsed a "kill 'em all" doctrine of war, so I'd appreciate it if we limited the broad brush strokes approach.
-
Originally posted by crockett
You know I get so sick of hearing you right wingers act as if Democrats have no balls and are weak on terrorism.
You want the facts?
Less than a year after the Dems took control of Congress and the Senate, they passed legislation to fund the scanning that was suggested by the 9/11 commission at both our ports and for cargo planes entering the US.
Despite Republicans holding all the power the last 6 years since 9/11 they haven't managed to do this. Why? Because the Democrats put it as a top priority. So they didn't talk about doing it they "did it".
Also this week Democrats managed to get an extra 3 billion in funding for our US/Mexican boarder. That mean more boarder patrol troops on the ground "protecting our boarders".
Bush had planned to veto it because he thought it was too much money. Yea the guy that write blank checks to haliburton nonstop but an extra 3 billion was too much to spend on boarder security.
So once again we see Republicans talking the talk, meanwhile the Democrats are the ones walking the walk. Your Tough on Terror Republicans are just tough on terror when it's comes to talking like usual they never have any action to back the talk.
It's always the same, you want to listen to a bunch of talk about getting things done, you elect Republicans. However if you actually want to get anything done you better talk to the Democrats.
Dems wish to strengthen the border? nice change, REALLY don't hear Hillary or Obama talking it up, in fact, all the Dem pres candidates were silent during the immigration fight (as were most Bush officials, unless it was to oppose enforcement)
As for the 3 billion:The Senate on Thursday approved an amendment devoting $3 billion to increase border security efforts as part of a $38 billion homeland security funding bill. It passed 89-1.
sounds good so far....
howEVER: he amendment, offered by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), provides funding to build a 700-mile long fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, as called for in the Secure Fence Act. It also requires the federal government to establish and to demonstrate operational control over 100 percent of the land and maritime borders between the U.S. and Mexico. ......................The amendment provides to hire, train and deploy 23,000 Customs and Border Patrol agents. It seeks to permanently end the "catch and release" of illegal aliens by providing the resources necessary to detain up to 45,000 individuals a day.
Wonder which Dem voted against it?link (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200707/POL20070726e.html)
Dems ALSO initilly tried to BLOCK the 'john doe' provision---which would protect from harassment litigation those who report suspicious activity in airports, etc--like the 6 Imams---the passengers who reported the behavior are being sued by these salamanders. Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, initially opposed the legislation, expressing concern that it would lead to racial profiling
link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070719/NATION/70719001&template=nextpage)
(Dems saw they were on wrong side of polls and let it go through) Aside from port security, which I agree with (and will coincidentally create LOTS more union jobs), Dems haven't shown me that this kind of stuff is paramount for them
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Dems wish to strengthen the border? nice change, REALLY don't hear Hillary or Obama talking it up, in fact, all the Dem pres candidates were silent during the immigration fight (as were most Bush officials, unless it was to oppose enforcement)
As for the 3 billion: sounds good so far....
howEVER:
Wonder which Dem voted against it?link (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200707/POL20070726e.html)
Dems ALSO initilly tried to BLOCK the 'john doe' provision---which would protect from harassment litigation those who report suspicious activity in airports, etc--like the 6 Imams---the passengers who reported the behavior are being sued by these salamanders. link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070719/NATION/70719001&template=nextpage)
(Dems saw they were on wrong side of polls and let it go through) Aside from port security, which I agree with (and will coincidentally create LOTS more union jobs), Dems haven't shown me that this kind of stuff is paramount for them
I'm not going to say the Dem's are perfect, but they tend to get the job done. Who gives a crap about John does BS.
The fact is we need more boarder patrol officers and secure boarders everything else in regards to that is secondary. We need to scan cargo ship's and aircraft. The fact is Dem's just put the bill in place to do just that, meanwhile the Repubs just talked tough and didn't do anything.
Republican's never do anything unless some special intrest group benefits from it or big business. The fact is Republican could have done just about anything they wanted and they did. However the fact is they still didn't put our country's safety as a priority.
Of course if they could figure out a way to give Haliburton a no bid contract to secure the boarders then I'm sure Republicans would have been all for it.
Oh and you are actually complaining that the Dem's saw that people wanted something different so they did what the people wanted? You actually prefer the Bush doctrine of do it wrong over and over and over as long as you stay the course.
In case you forgot our govt is here to serve the people not vice versa.. If the people say hey we don't like this, it's the govt's job to change it. Not tell us they are the decider and do what ever they want.
-
...we have to fight the war on the same level the enemy fights it. When you fight a war with PC gloves on it is perceived as a weakness.
Mr No Name - are you going to be the one to start killing little boys? How would you prefer to kill a nine year old compared to say, a 12 year old? Will you use strangulation maybe? Or will you saw their heads off with a kitchen knife?
Afterall, aren't we supposed to be fighting the 'war' like the enemy?
-
no point in getting down and dirty with them cause that's what they want; or trying to cull the chaff from the wheat, that's too slow and time is on their side; or going soft on them.. ultimately all will fail. better to use superior fire power while you’re still got it and let God sort out the good from the bad. May as well face it, regardless of religious beliefs or lack off, it's going to happen sooner or later.
-
Originally posted by crockett
I'm not going to say the Dem's are perfect, but they tend to get the job done. Who gives a crap about John does BS.
The fact is we need more boarder patrol officers and secure boarders everything else in regards to that is secondary. We need to scan cargo ship's and aircraft. The fact is Dem's just put the bill in place to do just that, meanwhile the Repubs just talked tough and didn't do anything.
Republican's never do anything unless some special intrest group benefits from it or big business. The fact is Republican could have done just about anything they wanted and they did. However the fact is they still didn't put our country's safety as a priority.
Of course if they could figure out a way to give Haliburton a no bid contract to secure the boarders then I'm sure Republicans would have been all for it.
Oh and you are actually complaining that the Dem's saw that people wanted something different so they did what the people wanted? You actually prefer the Bush doctrine of do it wrong over and over and over as long as you stay the course.
In case you forgot our govt is here to serve the people not vice versa.. If the people say hey we don't like this, it's the govt's job to change it. Not tell us they are the decider and do what ever they want.
Lol do you get cash if you work Halliburton into every post? The gazillion dollar Homeland Security bill wasn't going to do ANYthing about the border. A House GOP member introduced said provision--in truth, the ONLY 'shut-down-the-border' talk over the last few years has been from a slight majority of the House GOP members. The Pres and the Senate have been either neutral or against it, only thinking about being labeled as racists and losing the Hispanic vote
The 'John Doe bs' is significant--Are ya saying that Americans viewing possible terrorists doing 'dry' runs, reporting it, then being sued by said terrorists via the wealt of oil-rich middle eastern doesn't matter?
The imams, who had been removed from the aircraft, complained that their civil rights were violated. But their suspicious conduct -- asking for unnecessary seatbelt extenders, refusing to sit in their assigned places and praying loudly before boarding -- are actions that should raise suspicions in air travelers because, as the public record shows, they were similar to some of the behaviors of the 9/11 hijackers.
The Democrats who voted to strip the provision teamed up with the American Civil Liberties Union, which in November wrote a letter to Leiberman claiming that religious persecution had occurred and the clerics were “deemed a threat to security merely because they had, in accordance with their faith, conducted their evening prayers in Arabic.” The ACLU said that after 9/11, “flying while Muslim” made some passengers unfair targets. However, the imams’ behavior in the November incident provoked a real concern for air travel safety. Suspicion is a simple, preventative measure that puts citizens in control and helps security officials. If you see something, say something. .........
Debra Burlingame, director of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and sister of 9-11 victim American Airlines Flight 77 pilot Charles Burlingame, whose aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, wrote in an editorial that “one of those most haunted” people by 9/11 is the airline worker who screened some of the hijackers before boarding. “He told the 9/11 commission that the pair, traveling on first class, one-way, e-tickets, ‘didn't act right.’”
“Though he selected them for secondary screening, he didn't request a more thorough search because he ‘was worried about being accused of being 'racist' and letting 'prejudice' get in the way,” Burlingame wrote.
The Democrats who opposed the amendment apparently succumbed to pressure from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the group suing on behalf the imams. CAIR, though it bills itself as a “civil rights” organization, has ties to Islamic terrorist groups. Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for CAIR, tried to defend the lawsuit on MSNBC yesterday with a comparison to Klu Klux Klan members coming on board to accuse black people of suspicious behavior for no reason. "We don't know if [the unnamed passengers] had malicious intent," he said. Some have speculated that the Imams purposely displayed their behavior to provoke a lawsuit.
link (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21688)
-
crockett
I remember the lack of response by the dem admin to the terror attacks of the 90's differently than you do. IMO it was the lack of intensity of our responses to them which embolden the extremists which resulted in 9/11 and beyond. Of course the potus at the time was slightly distracted and had other things on his mind .. didn't he ... they had 8 years to handle it but instead looked the other way
CB/Dowding
you both know full well no one this board could murder an unarmed child. that is one of many things which separate us from our animal cheekbones enemy. Keep stirring the pot though as sensationalism is one spin which works well with the uniformed these days
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Funny, still no objection to Mr No Name's explicit advocacy of killing young muslim children. The silence is... dare I say it... deafening.
Killing children of any religion or nonreligion is bad.
Wouldn't want you to go deaf. ;)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Mr No Name - are you going to be the one to start killing little boys? How would you prefer to kill a nine year old compared to say, a 12 year old? Will you use strangulation maybe? Or will you saw their heads off with a kitchen knife?
Afterall, aren't we supposed to be fighting the 'war' like the enemy?
Did they care about the ages of those they killed on 9/11 or in other suicide bomb attacks all over the world? No, they did not... as to your knife question - thats not efficient enough, I'd rather make an entire city glow whenever an attack against the west takes place but until then, bullets will suffice.
The islamofascists have been at WAR against the west since 1979. We have not been engaging them until recently. It is a global movement of a grand scale, involving countries where islam was virtually uknown, the phillipines, malaysia even gaining ground in latin america! They have an attitude that everyone must convert and submit or DIE.
I am in full agreement with Tancredo that the next attack against the west should result in the destruction of mecca by nuclear blast. They ARE in a total war against us, I believe we should be in a TOTAL war against them.
The thought of war and its' horrors sickens me but they have declared it, they are fighting against us every day. We owe it to them to make war as distasteful to them as it is to us... That means no restrictions to the targets we attack - if it's close to a mosque - too bad, a hospital - too bad, a school - again, too bad. They know where we will not hit and they use it against us. They cross the border from pakistan and syria and other countries to fight us just as the communists did in laos and cambodia - we must disregard these borders that give them protection and kill them wherever we find them.
The question is no longer "Do we fight this war?" WE ARE IN IT, people are fighting and dying as we sit here reading this board. We owe it to the troops fighting, our nation as a whole and our allies to fight to win no matter what it requires to win it, without regard for whomever we have to kill to take away the will and ability to fight of our enemies.
-
Just to make sure you folks know, it turns out this "dry run" story was bogus and an over-hype job by the TSA and CNN. CNN never corrected the story on their website, but said "Oops, sorry about that" over weekend. I hope some of you aren't too disappointed?
Here's a interview with one of the dry run islamofascists:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/07/27/todd.bogus.threat.cnn
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
5. Limited objectives. If the purpose of war is ultimately peace, then total destruction of the nation is not just. Only narrow war-fighting objectives that bring the war to a successful conclusion are legitimate. Blanket bombing, gassing, the destruction of a people's way of life is not warranted.
6. Proportional means. Is tied closed to #5, the type of weaponry and tactics employed should be limited to secure the limited objectives (repelling the aggressor, deterring future illegal attacks, removing specific aggressive individuals/groups from power).
7. Protection for non-combatants. Since war fighting is a declared, official act of organized government, only those who are active agents of that government (its fighting soldiers--not POWs, casualties, civilian non-participants) may fight. Others should be protected from aggressive acts of violence.
USA tried to follow these principles in Vietnam. It did not work, especially when the enemy had other principles, or more likely, did not have any rules at all.
-
Originally posted by TimRas
USA tried to follow these principles in Vietnam. It did not work, especially when the enemy had other principles, or more likely, did not have any rules at all.
That crossed my mind as well--Would the US EVER fight a war the way we did against Germany and Japan again? Utterly FLATTEN the whole place...probably not. How many tens of thousands of guys died in Vietnam before we ever were ALLOWED to egg targets in the North? A country prosecuting a war ought to have to experience said war