Over The Top?

[Semper Fi]

Jeezus!! You are a freakin American terrorist! You have your own version of Al-Qaeda going. And training your kids to kill people? What a pathetically sick person you are. You need mental help.

Actually knowing how to handle firearms is a good thing. If a child is taught at a young age to respect firearms there is less of a chance that they will do something foolish with them later in life, and quite possibley save a life. How can you be against saving lives?

 

[Gunny]

If me valuing the lives of innocents makes me a liberal, than I hate to see what would be suggested as the definition of conservative.

There are peaceful, productive and friendly Muslims out there. There can be no excuse to find them guilty because of the sins of extremists. That's not justice, it is genocide.

The concept of "Enemy" you suggest is too broad, though ironically when groups send out the battle cry to make all Muslims the enemy, that is indeed what they will become. Hate begets hate, and they will have their war.


-MLK

Valuing the lived of innocents is important, but not so important that one loses a war for survival over it.

Those peaceful, productive and friendly Muslims aren't doingmuch to distance themselves from the radicals. It is encumbent on THEM to do so. Better yet, if they were as intollerant to the radicals as they are infidels, they could police their own ranks and we wouldn't have to.

 

[Gunny]

OK, I am finished now. I keep imagining Sarge as Snake Pliskin in Escape From New York. cp is the guy who stands tall against terrorism...until he meets one.

Sarge? I am a Gunnery Sergeant. You can call me Gunny. You can call me Marine. You can call me jarhead. Hell, you can call me asshole.

That sarge shit is unsat.

 

[-Cp]

Valuing the lived of innocents is important, but not so important that one loses a war for survival over it.

Those peaceful, productive and friendly Muslims aren't doingmuch to distance themselves from the radicals. It is encumbent on THEM to do so. Better yet, if they were as intollerant to the radicals as they are infidels, they could police their own ranks and we wouldn't have to.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Really? Name some.... and how do you REALLY KNOW they are peaceful? How do you know they're not "all in it together"? Did you know that close to 5% of Muslims are "claimed" to be extreme? That's 65 MILLION!

What about valuing the lives of AMERICANS?

And 95% are not. That's 1.235 BILLION who are not. That's 1.235 BILLION who do not deserve that same fate.

2 MILLION Americans are current incarcerated with MILLIONS more who have been in jail over their lifetime. If we added that up, it would start pushing several percent of the population who have done enough wrong the the United States that it has warrented incarceration.

So back to our original case, we have 5% of the world muslim population (assumingly, i do question that value considerably) that are extremists and are a threat to US security. We then have a resounding 95% who are being suggested to share in the same fate. But in the US we have 2 or 3% of people who have been a threat to US citizens and say 97-98% that have not and should not be subjected to the penalities or their criminal countrymen.

If you believe in justice and good, which I have a great feeling you do, you must, just must see how this is not only wrong, but immoral.

 

[Gunny]

We then have a resounding 95% who are being suggested to share in the same fate. But in the US we have 2 or 3% of people who have been a threat to US citizens and say 97-98% that have not and should not be subjected to the penalities or their criminal countrymen.

And again, that 95% percent needs to get on the stick. If it's such an overwhelming majority, then how come the radicals are in power? That just makes it even worse for their case.

If you believe in justice and good, which I have a great feeling you do, you must, just must see how this is not only wrong, but immoral.

Sorry dude, but you are blinded by do-gooder idealism. Winning a war where our existence as a society is at stake is not wrong, nor immoral. It's called survival. I'm on OUR side, not theirs.

 

[Isaac Brock]

And again, that 95% percent needs to get on the stick. If it's such an overwhelming majority, then how come the radicals are in power? That just makes it even worse for their case.

To that I would agree wholeheartedly and indeed some do like the large Muslim demonstartion in London today proves. Democracy is slow coming to that region of the world, but time will tell if military intervention was the correct solution. I do believe, either way, it will be inevitable.

Sorry dude, but you are blinded by do-gooder idealism. Winning a war where our existence as a society is at stake is not wrong, nor immoral. It's called survival. I'm on OUR side, not theirs.

I'm not questioning your pursuit to bring terrorists to their deserved fate, but you don't need to take down the women, children and innocents with you. I don't care what war we're referring to, at know time is it honorable to knowingly and consciously attack innocent civilians.

 

[-Cp]

I'm not questioning your pursuit to bring terrorists to their deserved fate, but you don't need to take down the women, children and innocents with you.

Sure ya do - ya get the kids before they grow up to be terrorists and the women so they can't breed more terrorists...

 

[Isaac Brock]

Sure ya do - ya get the kids before they grow up to be terrorists and the women so they can't breed more terrorists...

Punishment before crime? I had thought we had become more civilized than that, perhaps I was wrong.

 

[-Cp]

Punishment before crime? I had thought we had become more civilized than that, perhaps I was wrong.

Was it wrong for us to drop the Atom Bombs on Japan?

 

[Isaac Brock]

Was it wrong for us to drop the Atom Bombs on Japan?

A very good question, If you will allow, I'd like to consider that a bit further.

 

[-Cp]

A very good question, If you will allow, I'd like to consider that a bit further.

Please do - but I can help ya... NO, it wasn't....

It ENDED THE WAR... WAY more people would've died in combat then who were killed in both cities combined....

The army estimated that it would have cost between 500,000 to 1,000,000 soldiers lives to mount a successful full scale invasion of Japan.

War is NEVER EASY - leaders are always faced with the "lesser of two evils" - if you will - of choices...

That, my friend, is the part LIBERALS (not call you one, just saying) will never understand....

 

[kurtsprincess]

Jeezus!! You are a freakin American terrorist! You have your own version of Al-Qaeda going. And training your kids to kill people? What a pathetically sick person you are. You need mental help.

Gabby......hypothetically........let's say we get nuked, and we listen to you and your buddies, and don't retaliate.

And we just keep every time they strike, and eventually they are the majority here in America.

Any idea what you will say when they come knocking on your door and tell you to convert or they will kill you?

 

[kurtsprincess]

And 95% are not. That's 1.235 BILLION who are not. That's 1.235 BILLION who do not deserve that same fate.

2 MILLION Americans are current incarcerated with MILLIONS more who have been in jail over their lifetime. If we added that up, it would start pushing several percent of the population who have done enough wrong the the United States that it has warrented incarceration.

So back to our original case, we have 5% of the world muslim population (assumingly, i do question that value considerably) that are extremists and are a threat to US security. We then have a resounding 95% who are being suggested to share in the same fate. But in the US we have 2 or 3% of people who have been a threat to US citizens and say 97-98% that have not and should not be subjected to the penalities or their criminal countrymen.

If you believe in justice and good, which I have a great feeling you do, you must, just must see how this is not only wrong, but immoral.

One of the things I learned at a young age was how to work within a group for the good of the whole. I was one of seven children. When something negative would happen my parents would line us up and ask who the culprit was. Of course none of us would cop to the offense, and none of us wanted to be labled (and beat up later) as a snitch, so we would stand there mute.

That didn't stop my parents from handing out consequences.....we all had to suffer the consequences. However, they did give us an opportunity before the consequences began to talk it over in the group and decide if we all wanted to suffer together, or whether we could convince the culprit to fess up. Usually, the culprit would fess up because there would be six of us after their butts if they didn't fess up and take the consequences.

So, perhaps we should expand on this concept in order to get the 95% to put some heavy pressure on the 5% to fess up and take the consequences, rather than having all of them suffer the consequences of their inaction and silence.

 

[Gunny]

To that I would agree wholeheartedly and indeed some do like the large Muslim demonstartion in London today proves. Democracy is slow coming to that region of the world, but time will tell if military intervention was the correct solution. I do believe, either way, it will be inevitable.



I'm not questioning your pursuit to bring terrorists to their deserved fate, but you don't need to take down the women, children and innocents with you. I don't care what war we're referring to, at know time is it honorable to knowingly and consciously attack innocent civilians.

The casualties of war are not always targetted. It IS regretful; however, in some cases necessary and justified. We are currently at war with a faceless, nameless enemy -- the 5% hiding out among the 95%, who I might add are NOT identifying them.

I will agree it is not honorable to TARGET noncombatants. However, if your target is pinpointed and striking him would also cause the deaths of noncombatants, then it is a judgement call as to whether or not the target is worthy of the collateral damage.

Again, it is self-destructive to knowingly let your enemy escape simply out of a misguided, overly-moralistic belief that noncombatants cannot be killed regardless the circumstances.

 

[Isaac Brock]

One of the things I learned at a young age was how to work within a group for the good of the whole. I was one of seven children. When something negative would happen my parents would line us up and ask who the culprit was. Of course none of us would cop to the offense, and none of us wanted to be labled (and beat up later) as a snitch, so we would stand there mute.

That didn't stop my parents from handing out consequences.....we all had to suffer the consequences. However, they did give us an opportunity before the consequences began to talk it over in the group and decide if we all wanted to suffer together, or whether we could convince the culprit to fess up. Usually, the culprit would fess up because there would be six of us after their butts if they didn't fess up and take the consequences.

So, perhaps we should expand on this concept in order to get the 95% to put some heavy pressure on the 5% to fess up and take the consequences, rather than having all of them suffer the consequences of their inaction and silence.

While I certainly can agree to some extent, going without desert one night and death are two completely different scales of punishment.

 

[5stringJeff]

Frankly, the whole "let's bomb Mecca" idea is ridiculous. As has been stated, 95% of Muslims are non-terrorist supporting Muslims. Are we to punish/kill them because of the actions of terrorists?

If we found that the terrorists were state sponsored, the capital city of that country would be a prime target for retaliation, but I would consider MOABs and other conventional bombs first.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Please do - but I can help ya... NO, it wasn't....

It ENDED THE WAR... WAY more people would've died in combat then who were killed in both cities combined....

The army estimated that it would have cost between 500,000 to 1,000,000 soldiers lives to mount a successful full scale invasion of Japan.

War is NEVER EASY - leaders are always faced with the "lesser of two evils" - if you will - of choices...

That, my friend, is the part LIBERALS (not call you one, just saying) will never understand....

I would agree that the use of nukes in WW2 was justified. The civilians living in Japan were knowingly under a state of war with the the Allies. While of course there were likely some dissenters, and some were probably at varying degrees produing towards Japan's war machine, the country was operating under a state of war. All the the citizens knew it.

Thus an attack on Japan, no matter how large was expected. Whether is was a few dropped bombs by the US or an outright in invasions, lives would have been lost.

The difference between this scenario and terrorists, is that it is no longer a question of state (with the exception of perhaps Iran and the previous government of Afghanistan which is another matter), nor is it a question of majority, nor is it a question of a declaration of war. You are now fighting individuals and I will indeed go back to suggesting one takes a look at my previous analogy about criminals in the United States.

The War on Terrorism is no war. It is no more war than the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty. These "wars" will have no declaration to mark the end and no surrender to mark the end. When you extend fighting terrorism to open and attacks on innocents Muslims or committ acts as suggested by Rep. Tom Tancredo, you are no longer protecting your country from terrorism, you will be inciting genocide.

 

[GotZoom]

Maybe that is the whole problem? All this, proper target, no civilian casualties PC.

When the WTC was attacked (both time), did the terrorists care who would die? They saw it as a symbolic target against the West. They wanted to get our attention, kill as many people as possible, and put fear into our souls.

But here we are. Talking to the UN. Worried about what other people think.

If someone attacks my family, and I know who it is, they are done. I don't care who I piss off in the process. And if my rage equates to an outrageous show of force, the rest of the attacker's family will be hesitant in messing with me.

Japan is a perfect example. We dropped the nukes, they came running to surrender.

Now, I know one of the questions/statements. But we didn't know where the attackers were exactly from. Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan - the London bombers were Brits.

Tough decision. I still think we could have done more, and faster, and more severe to get out point across that you don't attack us.

Maybe if someone (not mentioning any names) was more concerned about the USS Cole, the barracks attack, etc., than messing around with the help, there could have been some pre-emptive actions that could (maybe could) have prevented something worse from happening - like it did.

 

[-Cp]

Maybe that is the whole problem? All this, proper target, no civilian casualties PC.

When the WTC was attacked (both time), did the terrorists care who would die? They saw it as a symbolic target against the West. They wanted to get our attention, kill as many people as possible, and put fear into our souls.

But here we are. Talking to the UN. Worried about what other people think.

If someone attacks my family, and I know who it is, they are done. I don't care who I piss off in the process. And if my rage equates to an outrageous show of force, the rest of the attacker's family will be hesitant in messing with me.

Japan is a perfect example. We dropped the nukes, they came running to surrender.

Now, I know one of the questions/statements. But we didn't know where the attackers were exactly from. Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan - the London bombers were Brits.

Tough decision. I still think we could have done more, and faster, and more severe to get out point across that you don't attack us.

Maybe if someone (not mentioning any names) was more concerned about the USS Cole, the barracks attack, etc., than messing around with the help, there could have been some pre-emptive actions that could (maybe could) have prevented something worse from happening - like it did.

Additionally, if a *certain someone* had taken up the <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/showinside.pl?a=2002/8/10/230919" target=_blank">offer of Osama Bin Laden</a> - perhaps some of the terrorist attacks against us and our allies wouldn't have happened:

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

"And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again - they released him.

"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." (End of excerpt)

http://www.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3


Nah - <a href="http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/member.php?u=2747" target=_blank">the left</a> would rather ignore that, ignore his marital infidelity and instead make GWB look like the <a href="http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=308036&postcount=31" target=_blank">Antichrist</a>...

Sure....