Question for Iraq war supporters

[M14 Shooter]

Ummm.. lets make your example more realistic. Was the fact the Japanese had a navy sufficient for you? Even if it were in the Sea of Japan?

More realistic than... what actually happened?

Do you wait until the first torpedoes hit the water, or not?

 

[Dr Grump]

More realistic than... what actually happened?

Do you wait until the first torpedoes hit the water, or not?

You're dodging. Answer the question. Are you saying the Japs had a torpedo that could be fired from the Sea of Japan and then hit the Arizona in Hawaii?? Man, that must be some freaking torpedo!!

Look, I'll spell it out for you in simple terms, because even though you get the point that is being made, you are playing dumb because it suits you and then you would have to actually ANSWER a question you don't want to.

There was nothing about Iraq that posed an IMMINENT threat to the US. Nothing. If there was, and you used the so-called criteria that Bush The Liar used, then you'd be in Tehran, Pyongyang and Beijing right about now...hell, even Islamabad...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think that my neighbor is planning to beat me up. He looked at me with that “evil eye”. I don’t have any absolute proof that he is planning to hurt be but just to be safe, I better break into his house and mess things up for him.

Has in the past beat up his neighbors? Murdered any? Burned their houses down? Tried to kill members of your family? Paid other people to beat you up? Piped gas into other peoples houses?

Have the police ordered him to cease and desist but he has not complied? Have they ordered him to turn over all his weapons but he still brags he has an arsenal in his house that he is going to use on you and his other neighbors?

Just a few questions that would put your hypothetical more in line with what happened.

 

[eots]

[

QUOTE=RetiredGySgt;639773]Has in the past beat up his neighbors? Murdered any? Burned their houses down? Tried to kill members of your family? Paid other people to beat you up? Piped gas into other peoples houses?

somewhat of a inchorent sentence but if what your struggling to say is has this neighbour committed these acts to you in the past ? the answer would have to be basicaly no ..the terrorist lived at your freinds house not his

Have the police ordered him to cease and desist but he has not complied? Have they ordered him to turn over all his weapons but he still brags he has an arsenal in his house that he is going to use on you and his other neighbors?

the police ! your not the police your the bully neighbour that makes impossble to accept demands ,like to cease somthing your not doing


Just a few questions that would put your hypothetical more in line with what happened.[/QUOTE]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[

somewhat of a inchorent sentence but if what your struggling to say is has this neighbour committed these acts to you in the past ? the answer would have to be basicaly no ..the terrorist lived at your freinds house not his

Have the police ordered him to cease and desist but he has not complied? Have they ordered him to turn over all his weapons but he still brags he has an arsenal in his house that he is going to use on you and his other neighbors?

the police ! your not the police your the bully neighbour that makes impossble to accept demands ,like to cease somthing your not doing


Just a few questions that would put your hypothetical more in line with what happened.

[/QUOTE]

Perhaps if your going to call something incoherent you should make sure your grasp of the quote function is up to par?

 

[Alpha1]

So you propose we do nothing to stop them from killing us? Or are you implying we do what they want us to do and hope they stop killing us?

why do you always frame questions as either/or? In answer to your two overly simplistic questions: NO and NO.

Neither us acceptable....if they insist and persist in killing Americans, we must and will act in kind...and if it takes killing all of them, so be it....no society in the world should be allowed to use terror on people at will because they have political, social or religious gripes with others....or use terror on US citizens because they don't agree with their or other regional governments that have invited the US into their country.....

suggesting that a small Islamic extremist group is representative of Islamic society in general is frighteningly bigoted and absurd.

You claim "they hate us for our support of corrupt muslim monarchies and dictatorships"....
Then you claim, "it has taken strong armed autocratic dictatorial governments to keep them inline"
And then you claim, "we not invade and remove those same 'corrupt, autocratic dictatorial governments to give those ragheaded monkeys (your words, not mine) the opportunity to govern themselves in their own fashion...

Well, which is it? They hate us if we support their corrupt muslim monarchies and dictatorships, and they hate us when we remove those corrupt muslim monarchies and dictatorships....someday you might realize, plain and simple, they hate us because we are infidels....my guess is no matter what...you will blame the US first....

again.... more idiotic either/or. Either we support corrupt muslim dictatorships or we invade conquer and occupy them. Idiotic.

No, their is nothing legitimate about a preemptive, unprovoked war....but by the same token...
if you provoke war, threaten other countries,
and attempt to kill citizens of other nations by world wide terror,
or aid and abet terrorists,
it is you that has already struck preemptively, and declared war.

Iraq did not attack us. Al Qaeda did.

In this age of WMD we cannot and will not ignore the nations of the world...
WMD truly is a threat to human existence..this is Pandora's box and the keys to that box must be few and guarded.

so why hasn't dubya decided to invade conquer and occupy North Korea?

Maineman says....
1. If the message we want to send to the muslim world is to stop trying to kill Americans, and the method we chose to send that message is to kill Muslims, we had better be prepared to kill ALL of them, at home and abroad.

Alpha1 says...
So you propose we do nothing to stop them from killing us? Or are you implying we do what they want us to do and hope they stop killing us?
Neither us acceptable....if they insist and persist in killing Americans, we must and will act in kind...and if it takes killing all of them, so be it....no society in the world should be allowed to use terror on people at will because they have political, social or religious gripes with others....or use terror on US citizens because they don't agree with their or other regional governments that have invited the US into their country.....

We can take one question at a time....So you've answered no and no....and I've asked WHAT do you propose we do.... so what do you propose?
I've already stated that IF they insist and persist on killing Americans, we will react in kind....and if it takes killing all of them, so be it...I've no problem with that .....what do YOU PROPOSE WE DO....???

 

[LuvRPgrl]

- or do all pro-Bush and Pro-Iraq people think that all of Bush’s decisions throughout the war in Iraq to this point were reasonable and well-planned-out.

Please, name one war, any war in history, where ALL decisions were well planned out and reasonable. You are a joke

 

[maineman]

Maineman says....
1. If the message we want to send to the muslim world is to stop trying to kill Americans, and the method we chose to send that message is to kill Muslims, we had better be prepared to kill ALL of them, at home and abroad.

Alpha1 says...
So you propose we do nothing to stop them from killing us? Or are you implying we do what they want us to do and hope they stop killing us?
Neither us acceptable....if they insist and persist in killing Americans, we must and will act in kind...and if it takes killing all of them, so be it....no society in the world should be allowed to use terror on people at will because they have political, social or religious gripes with others....or use terror on US citizens because they don't agree with their or other regional governments that have invited the US into their country.....

We can take one question at a time....So you've answered no and no....and I've asked WHAT do you propose we do.... so what do you propose?
I've already stated that IF they insist and persist on killing Americans, we will react in kind....and if it takes killing all of them, so be it...I've no problem with that .....what do YOU PROPOSE WE DO....???

To suggest that "THEY" persist on killing Americans and somehow equating "THEY" with Muslims in general and not a relatively minuscule percentage of the world Islamic population really places you in a position where rational propositions would have no meaning to you.

We are dealing with a handful of Muslims out of the more than one billion Muslims on the planet. They are not aligned with any particular nation state - in fact, no current muslim nation state's government has any legitimate interest in assisting them since the overarching goal of these extremists is the elimination of all those nation states.

Large scale military operations against nation states is not the way to proceed. When we do so, we end up creating more enmity than we eliminate.

I believe that there are many ways to ultimately defeat Islamic extremism and that we should try to do as many of them as rapidly as possible....targeted small scale military operations, significantly beefing up HUMINT capabilities and using the results of those intelligence assets to help us pinpoint their locations and their funding sources and eliminating them, putting real pressure on the Islamic regimes that allow the madrassas that crank out American hatred to operate, quickly begin a concerted effort to wean ourselves off of petroleum, become more measured in our efforts between Israel and the Palestinians, reduce our lavish support for autocratic regimes, effectively control our borders and our ports of entry. Those are a few ideas off the top of my head. I haven't had my cup of green tea yet this morning so I perhaps would be able to think of more later.... but you get the gist.

I do not think that invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq and attempting to create a multicultural democracy THERE at the point of a gun and then expecting that to spread to other arab and muslim countries makes any sense at all.

And, as I said in the beginning.... for you to even have the mindset that all "Muslims" are the enemy is the kind of thinking that dooms us to failure.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're dodging.

Did you read the post I responded to?
If so, I'm not a all sure how you can can claim that -I- am dodging.

 

[Angel Heart]

Please, name one war, any war in history, where ALL decisions were well planned out and reasonable. You are a joke

Isn't that the truth. We all are human beings and making mistakes just like every other human being. Even in the highest of offices.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I Like how Maineman makes the claim only a miniscule number of Muslims are involved in terror. What a joke.

 

[maineman]

I Like how Maineman makes the claim only a miniscule number of Muslims are involved in terror. What a joke.

what percentage would you consider small enough to warrant the use of the word "minuscule"?

 

[mattskramer]

I Like how Maineman makes the claim only a miniscule number of Muslims are involved in terror. What a joke.

http://enalnitram.blogspot.com/2007/04/islam-and-islamism.html

 

[maineman]

excellent link, Matt. I am sure that RGS will be forthcoming with his polite retraction!

 

[eots]

I Like how Maineman makes the claim only a miniscule number of Muslims are involved in terror. What a joke.

thats for sure the shadowy enemy is everywhere in fact they may be hovering over your house right now ! in a black helicopter they come in all shapes size's and colors ! it might even be your neighbor or a family member

The New Al-Qaeda: Blonde Haired, Blue Eyed Westerners
Fox News hysteria labels Caucasians with no criminal record as new breed of terrorists

Prison Planet | January 16, 2008
Paul Joseph Watson
Echoing the much derided 2003 FBI warning that a good way to spot potential terrorists is to check if they are carrying an almanac, Fox News went beyond the pale this morning in suggesting that Al-Qaeda's most likely acolytes are blonde haired, blue eyed Caucasian westerners with no criminal record.

Fox and Friends' ever ready Neo-Con slug Brian Kilmeade, who in November called on Americans to support terrorist car bombings in Iran , as well as funding for terrorist groups to "create havoc in Iran", interviewed ex-CIA spook Mike Baker, whose company Diligence LLC has close ties to the Bush administration and just happens to butter its bread with the aid of a steady supply of global unrest and terror hype.



The story, which is based on a comment by a single MI5 source (must be true then) that was subsequently picked up in a Scotsman article , claims that Al-Qaeda have recruited 1,500 white Britons to carry out attacks in the UK.

For those of us who recoiled in absolute horror at the proficiency of dumb and dumber's summer exploits in setting a car on fire at Glasgow airport , it's obvious that "Al-Qaeda's" recruiting efforts need to improve if they are to live up to the status lavishly bestowed upon them by the establishment media.

So, as Baker and Kilmeade somehow manage to relate while keeping straight faces, the new breed of jihadists have been identified as white Caucasian westerners with blonde hair, blue eyes, and no criminal record.

See it to believe it.
http://infowars.com/articles/terror/new_al_qaeda_blonde_haired_blue_eyed_westerners.htm


Baker told Kilmeade that al Qaeda looks for operatives who can fit in, just as the CIA does, saying, "If they can recruit a Scandinavian, that's the holy grail for them." He added, "They need people who can move around freely and do their bidding," apparently implying that blue-eyed blondes are the people who blend most seamlessly into Western society, reports Raw Story .

However, Baker dismissed Kilmeade's suggestion that al Qaeda would be particularly interested in recruiting in US prisons. "To go into a prison and try to recruit individuals -- that person's already tainted. What they really need, they need people who haven't run afoul of law enforcement in the past. ... Their problems are extreme in trying to recruit someone who can go out there and carry out their business."

So there you have it, even if you believe we are fighting a war against radical Muslims that want to wipe us off the planet, your intelligence agencies are working on the premise that the next likely suicide bombers are going to look like Ken and Barbie. Does that make you feel safe?


In December 2003, the FBI sent out a nationwide alert to police which stated that people traveling with almanacs and maps should be viewed as potential terrorists and searched at checkpoints. In comparison, this new bout of hysteria makes such folly appear positively rational.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what the agenda is here. Just as we were told that there were reds under the bed during the cold war era, without the specter of potential terrorists running around our backyards, the war on terror itself and all the fearmongering attached to it is rendered impotent.

So the new potential terrorists are our friends, our neighbors and even us - mandating that the whole police state apparatus that has been constructed since 9/11 be swung around to target the American and British people.

Oh yeah, and if there are real terrorists planning devastating attacks, they won't be stopped because the CIA and MI5 foot soldiers have been trained to look for members of the 1970's Swedish pop group Abba

 

[M14 Shooter]

http://enalnitram.blogspot.com/2007/04/islam-and-islamism.html
According to a website which blames all of Islam for Islamofascism, there have been 7,906 “deadly acts of terror” since the 9/11 attacks, as of today. Assuming this to be true, this works out to be about one act of terror for every 202,378 Muslims.

This is obviously silly. It assumes that a single person is responsible for each act, when its quite likely that several people were involved.

Lets assume each “deadly acts of terror” involves, in some way, 10 people. Thats 1 in 20,238 muslims, or 0.0049%.

Can you imagine blaming the 99.995% for the misdeeds of the 0.0049%?

Sure I can -- the anti-gun loons do it all the time.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what the agenda is here. Just as we were told that there were reds under the bed during the cold war era, just as we were told that the Muslims were out to kill us and destroy our way of life, without the specter of children, armed with assault weapons loaded with cop killer bullets, running around our backyards, the war on the right to arms and all the fearmongering attached to it is rendered impotent.

 

[maineman]

This is obviously silly. It assumes that a single person is responsible for each act, when its quite likely that several people were involved.

Lets assume each “deadly acts of terror” involves, in some way, 10 people. Thats 1 in 20,238 muslims, or 0.0049%.

Hey RGS....would you consider 0.0049% to be "minuscule"?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Hey RGS....would you consider 0.0049% to be "minuscule"?

Every act involves more then 10 people. Lets take Iran, a muslim Country, they openly recruit suicide bombers and martyrs to walk through land mines. They openly PAY and supply Hezbulla in Lebanon to kill for them. I would say there are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of Iranians that would willingly conduct terror attacks. Then we have Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Pal Authority, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia.... there is a whole lot more then 70 thousand islomo fascists out there AND there are MILLIONS more that support them by donating money, hiding them, turning a blind eye to what they do and openly praising them.

Or are you now going to claim differently?

 

[Paulie]

I Like how Maineman makes the claim only a miniscule number of Muslims are involved in terror. What a joke.

Out of a billion total, I'd say yeah, it's miniscule.

Can you even name, say, 50 known terrorists off the top of your head without searching?

The nameless, faceless potential terrorists throughout the world can't constitute any exact amount, since you really have no idea who actually IS a terrorist without some type of confirmation of it.

Do you have anything to show that indicates a specific amount of terrorists, out of the billion muslims?

 

[Paulie]

Lets assume each “deadly acts of terror” involves, in some way, 10 people. Thats 1 in 20,238 muslims, or 0.0049%.

What's the statistics for 1 murderer out of however many American citizens?

There are more Americans murdered each day in this country than people murdered by terrorism, and the grand total of the latter PALES in comparison to the grand total of the former.

Why don't we just bomb cities where we know murderers live? We very possibly could take some of them out. Shouldn't the casualties be worth the agenda of eventually stopping the murdering?

If no, then why are they in other countries? Because they're not Americans? Are American civilians worth more than Iraqi civilians, as humans?

All we're doing is trading who's being murdered, and by who, and the end result is really only death.

Human death is human death. There's no moral justification for it.

That's not Liberal or Conservative. That's HUMAN.