Piece of **** muslim convert kills young soldier and wounds another

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by saltyone, Jun 1, 2009.

Page 9 of 16
  1. tirk

    tirk im the lyrical jessie james

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    47,369
    Likes Received:
    21,536
    please just put bamboo shoots under my fingernails and waterboard me..
     
    tirk, Jun 7, 2009
    #81
  2. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    there a couple stupid proclamations that people like to make these days, which are effectively meaningless, but are nevertheless repeated endlessly. "you cant really fight a war on terror" is one. another is "the US is frighteningly similar to the historical empires of the past, right before they collapse. look it up its creepy". these are basically thing that people who do not like to think for themselves say. they hear them in the media and repeat them without ever really considering it.

    perhaps lsu-i-like just doesnt like the idea of policing the world. fair enough. and perhaps it wuold have been a smart plan 50 years ago to just keep to ourselves, not help folks like the afgans vs the soviets, or iraq vs iran.

    but right now, it is just too dangerous to allow failed states to not police themselves in terms of terrorists. if a country allows terrorists to hang out and train and do whatever, then that country simply cannot exist anymore and needs to start over with a new government. thats just the way things are now. it sucks. and if the UN wasnt a worthless sack of ****, then maybe they would help out. but as it is, pretty much the only nations that have any idea what they are doing are the US, UK, spain, maybe poland and a couple others. the rest are cowards and idiots.

    so yes, it does suck to police the world, to fight a global "war on terror". it also sucks to do nothing and sit on your hands and let murderous lunatics do whatever they want.
     
    martin, Jun 7, 2009
    #82
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Finding a better way to fight Al Qaida does not mean sitting on our hands and doing nothing. Eight years of the "war on terror"--taking down two muslim countries--and bin Ladin still runs free, inciting and plotting terror.

    We need to fight a smarter war, not a dumber one and no one suggests doing nothing. But more of the same would be very dumb.

    I've been saying that the real enemy is in Pakistan for about five years now and we are finally starting to wake up to that fact. What we don't need to do is to destroy Pakistan. Thats' more blood, more money, and taking on more enemies. We need to take the fight directly to Al Qaida wherever they hide and we are now doing that with the missile strikes.

    We need to turn the Paks against the Taliban and that is starting to work. Then, we need to turn the Taliban against Al Qaida. When you fight a guerrilla war against an enemy hiding among a native people, you win by turning the people against them, not by driving them together. Petraeus made that plan that work in Iraq and he literally wrote the book on counter-insurgencies. He's smarter than Rumsfeld and Bush finally realized it and let Petraeus have his way in Iraq. Now he's in charge of the whole theatre and Obama is letting him have his way in Afghanistan, too.

    It's damn sure a shooting war because the military is overtly involved, but we don't defeat "terror" by taking over or destroying the place. We win by dividing the enemy from the people who let him hide among them. It takes the carrot and the stick. When Al Qaida has nowhere to hide, when they've lost their last support . . . then they can be taken out, and it won't take destroying all 27 muslim countries to do it.
     
    red55, Jun 7, 2009
    #83
    2 people like this.
  4. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934

    i have an article i think you will enjoy:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/opinion/22brooks.html?em


    “The main difference between the Obama and Bush administrations concerns not the substance of terrorism policy, but rather its packaging"

    what had happened is that people like you who dont care about reality, but about appearances, are now favoring the bush policies. stepping it up in afhanistan, playing hardball with pakistan. these are bush policies. but obama is half black and friendly so we love him for doing the same thing bush was doing.
     
    martin, Jun 7, 2009
    #84
  5. Deceks7

    Deceks7 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,422
    Likes Received:
    539
    An American killing an American in this case, let us call it treason; turn him over to the Military and let us hold him in a prison not on US soil while waiting for trial...


    United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
     
    Deceks7, Jun 7, 2009
    #85
    1 person likes this.
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Don't try to mischaracterize me when i just clearly stated what I think. I do not favor Bush policies I just stated that we have little to show for years of Bush/Rumsfeld, stay-the-course "war on terror" policies. After the 2006 elections, Bush sacked Rumsfeld and put Petraeus in charge and actually listened to his generals for once. I applauded all three moves. I criticize Bush for putting us in a hole in Iraq and dropping the ball on the Taliban. I criticize him for taking 6 years to make changes to a failed policy. But I give him credit for actually making some changes at the end. Word is he even stopped listening to Cheney in his last two years. Good for him.

    No, he dropped the ball in Afghanistan, the "step-up" troops are just now going over. Mostly to replace disenchanted NATO allies who are leaving. But, I'll give him credit for finally letting the CIA do covert strikes against Al Qaida. And he finally seemed to understand what covert and deniability means. He allowed Pakistan to sit on the fence between ally and adversary for far too long and bet the farm (and $Billions) on Musharrif, who has fallen from power.

    But the point of my last post was that it was disingenuous for you to characterize Obama's dropping of the term "War on Terror" as "sitting on our hands" and doing nothing.

    Petraeus is in charge of Central Command, his new counter-insurgency strategy is replacing Shock-and-Awe and AirLand battle doctrines that proved unsuited to guerilla warfare, the covert missile strikes continue, more troops are on their way to Afghanistan, and Pakistan has been convinced to pressure the Taliban militarily in the Swat Valley, which is the key to the tribal areas.

    It's not "letting murderous lunatics do whatever they want" by a long shot. We're getting out of the Iraqi sideshow and taking the main effort to the Taliban, where it always belonged. Because they still shelter Al Qaida.

    Sarcastic martinspeak. And a poor excuse for an logical argument.
     
    red55, Jun 8, 2009
    #86
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Well, since you were replying to tirk, I'd have to rate your perception somewhere between C and F.
     
    red55, Jun 8, 2009
    #87
  8. lsu-i-like

    lsu-i-like Playoff advocate

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    17,958
    Likes Received:
    8,799
    I'm not saying everything would be hunky dory and I'm not saying we should just pretend like what is going on in the rest of the world doesn't affect us. But I do think we are too involved around the world.

    I find it confusing why so many who believe the government can do no right domestically think big government is the answer abroad. Those who are opposed to domestic welfare are tooting the trumpet of welfare for foreign nations.

    I think saying Afghanistan is part of "the war on terror" has some merit, but it also includes Iraq, which I believe was misguided and which I believe has done much more harm than good. I can not buy into a philosophy that led us into war in Iraq. I am not advocating sitting on our hands, I am simply not advocating rampaging half-cocked around the world.

    Why didn't we press Pakistan harder instead of beating Al Qaeda back across the border and then switching focus to a country quite tangential to 9/11? We gave and are giving Pakistan lots of money and bin Laden is still running around free in that country, and yet Pakistan bristles at the thought of US forces pursuing the terrorist network responsible for the attack that began "the war on terror." This is the "war" you want?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjnNfo5Spa8

    You must have forgotten that Bush made a detour into Iraq.
     
    lsu-i-like, Jun 8, 2009
    #88
  9. gumborue

    gumborue Throwin Ched

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    10,839
    Likes Received:
    577
    not indoctrinated. this is a normal, expected response to the baby-boomers hedonism and apathy. dont worry this current mood wont last long because there is no resolve to back it up.
     
    gumborue, Jun 8, 2009
    #89
  10. DRC

    DRC TigerNator

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,745
    Likes Received:
    374
    Which indicates more posters are known by the Avatar. :yelwink2:
     
    DRC, Jun 8, 2009
    #90
Page 9 of 16

Share This Page