This is not one of our usual subjects here at Sound Politics, but then terrorist attacks on this scale do not happen every day.
I think I can speak for all the contributors when I say that we want to extend our sympathy to all those who have lost a loved one, or have been injured, that we want to extend our admiration for the courageous British reaction, and that we want to extend whatever help we can to their efforts to find and kill or capture those responsible.
Posted by Jim Miller at July 07, 2005 12:47 PM | Email ThisIslamofacism is alive and well and A VERY REAL worldwide threat. Make no mistake about it. There is no room for those who will just stick their head in the sand and say "oh well, we had it coming" or "don't fight them--it will just make them angrier". Michael Medved's show had an interesting guest who is very familiar with the group that claimed responsibility. They have been trouble for quite some time.
Posted by: Realist on July 7, 2005 01:00 PMIn short, they already have. Check out Powerline and Michelle Malkin.
Posted by: sue gill rose on July 7, 2005 01:09 PMThey've been on it for hours already. Democratic Underground, Koz's Kids et al have numerous posts of typical McChimpyBushitlerstein garbage. It's expected.
Posted by: jimg on July 7, 2005 01:11 PM
We should end the lives of captured terrorists immediately. There can be no reasoning with the hatred that these people diplay. They are outside of any nation, outside the law, outside of human behavior. If we took a harsher line, maybe there would be some recognition of the fact that we intend to defend ourselves.
As it is, our media and "intellectuals" are obsessed with the minutia of treatment of terrorist detainess who are receiving three tasty meals a day.
It's telling that our media and "intellectuals" continue to defend the governments that make it possible for terrorists to indoctrinate more people with their hatred.
Until we get a lot more agressive in going to places like Lebabnon, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, etc. and hunting out terrorist organizations and terror schools, the attacks will continue.
We need to be doing more, not less.
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.html
Posted by: Larry on July 7, 2005 01:25 PMSeattle residents should be on guard. Their tolerant, myopic, liberal world view is a magnet for terrorists.
Thank God the horror in London has not befallen us, yet. I pray God helps us to help ourselves.
Posted by: Splatter on July 7, 2005 01:39 PMWAR isn't pretty! We will lose more soldiers, and there will be more civilian casualities in the middle east, some Korans will be kicked around cells at Gitmo, and maybe terrorists will be mistreated there too!
In the end it is all part of a war on people who are hell bent on directing their hatred of a civilized and free world on the innocent!
PS Liberals,
It doesn't matter who is in office! The terrorists don't care!!!
But,
It was only a matter of time before political correctness came back and bit them in the ass too. political correctness going to be the death of all of us. I wonder if Jamie Gorelick been over there creating policy lately.
Posted by: rolling eyes on July 7, 2005 02:24 PMIncidently one of the first things that occurred to me this am is that there were cells waiting in each of the finalist cities for the 2012 Olympics - to strike the winner --
As far as a terror strike in Seattle -- don't make me laugh -- the land of osamma mama mudray and McDimwit?? -- and putrid liberalism running down every gutter -- the vast welcoming and nuturing (education and employment) resources provided by the UW, boring and microshaft??? --
I bet the UW has a doubling of enrollment next year of students from Islamic countries --
Posted by: Bill on July 7, 2005 02:37 PMI heard a caller on Bill O'reilly (guest host John Gibson) this a.m. say, that if we pulled out of Iraq, they would leave us alone. John Gibson lost his temper and asked the caller where exactly we should have pulled out of BEFORE 9/11.
Posted by: cc on July 7, 2005 02:47 PMSwatter (aka Daniel K.) posted to his blog on the 6th " currently in the midst of a trip to Europe and presently visiting London.". He last posted yesterday about the Olympics. It is a bit worrisome.
No matter my opinion of Swatter's views, he is a fellow human and I am praying for his safety.
Return home safe Swatter. As a voice of opposition, we need you.
Posted by: Splatter on July 7, 2005 02:53 PMTony Blair is from the Labor party. If he had lost to the Conservatives, the policy would not have got weaker, unlike if JFK had won here.
Posted by: fred on July 7, 2005 03:07 PMActually after the TWA 747 fuel tank explosion the FAA ordered an inspection of all the electrical cabling going through the center fuel tank - which is where the explosion is said to have occured.
Where did all that other stuff come from? Bush conspiracy? I'm afraid I miss that completely as coming from anything I posted. I just have not seen anything definitive on it being the Islamic bunch, hence the question. I also said that it seems likely that they are the culprits. But that was also the first thing said after the OK City bombing, which, BTW was a home grown terrorist with no affiliation to the Islamic bunch.
Posted by: fred on July 7, 2005 03:34 PMBut I have to ask again... What keeps you here? I am serious when I say I love it here. I also find there is more interesting political discourse here than in many places I visit. So really, do you think "tearing down" Washington is some sort of macho anti-liberal argument?
Posted by: fire_one on July 7, 2005 03:38 PMSomeone mentioned lower security in London; part of the reason for that is that the G8 is meeting in Scotland, so a lot of the security personnel went up there. After all, they still have protesters there and the threat of further terrorist acts against the G8 crowd.
Joe wrote, "PS Liberals, It doesn't matter who is in office! The terrorists don't care!!!" Right on. The only distinction they probably make is between infidels who fight back and infidels who are "useful idiots."
Currently looking for a Union Jack to put on my car. Any ideas, people?
Posted by: Shannon K on July 7, 2005 03:43 PM"After all, what were American politicians doing while the terrorists were planning this morning's attack? The House, led by self-described socialist Bernie Sanders, was voting to prevent terror investigators from looking at library records. Rep. Charles Rangel was likening the liberation of Iraq to the Holocaust. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, was urging the administration to treat al Qaeda terrorists as civilians and comparing American servicemen to Nazis."
Posted by: Shannon K on July 7, 2005 03:45 PMhttp://www.britainusa.com/functions/feedback/enquiry.asp
Sorry - I've forgotten how to make the link live within the post...
Posted by: fred on July 7, 2005 03:58 PMWe will be directed to go out and look for as many Muslims as possible to hug in order to demonstrate our tolerance. We will be told that we need to prove our diversity by issuing more student visas to Islamic countries. And if we point out that terrorists are Islamic extremists, we will be chastised for being racist and intolerant of diversity.
After our own attacks on 9/11, we were mad and ready for a fight. We were outraged when the major news organizations aired tapes with scenes of Palestinians cheering and dancing after our attacks. We saw the enemy and it was clear that this was not just some disgruntled group of nutcases.
I was briefly encouraged by the surge in patriotism that we experienced after our attacks. Everybody was waving the flag and united. The most liberal politicians joined arms with the most conservative to sing "God Bless America".
But the PC crowd has shown us that it was just an act. Liberal politicians were forced to give the illusion of going along with the surge of patriotism or risk political death. Since then, they have gone back to their old ways. It is pitiful that this nation has such a short attention span and a lack of focus.
The sleeper cells can be sniffed out and destroyed. The real risk is the force that these people have within our political system. They have enough votes to keep our policy watered down and "sensitive" to our enemy.
Today was just another wake up call. We are at war with a relentless and savage enemy. Until we acknowledge our enemy and commit to fully destroying him, we will remain vulnerable and always waiting for the next attack.
May God comfort the families, survivors, and aid workers.
Posted by: Burdabee on July 7, 2005 04:04 PMThere were elictrical wires going through the main center tank. As the flight from JFK was relatively short the center fuel tank was not filled. Used empty fuel tanks are full of vapors. An electric wire that has worn can have the insulation come off. With the rattling about inside an empty (except for the vapors) fuel talk the wire can get close to the side of the metal fuel tank. When power goes through the cable it can spark to the metal frame. The spark could ignite the vapors in the fuel tank. With the expansion from the heat of the rapidly burning vapors the sides of the fuel tank will expand equally rapidly. As the exterior walls of the 747 are very near the center fuel tank, they also got pushed out to make a hole in the side of the aircraft, completely destroying the integrity and aerodynamics of the aircraft. As a consequence it broke up and fell intothe ocean. I'm sorry if I made out as if the electrical cables exploded. Hopefully this is slightly clearer.
Conspiracy theories can go on forever. The film of something going on in the night sky didn't show much other than something to build a theory on. If someone else was involved it doesn't point to Islamists. As in the 2000 elections and OH, unless something more than speculation and far fetched theories that fit into some anolomy seen/heard it doesn't hold water.
Posted by: fred on July 7, 2005 04:13 PMMy guess is that they are present to hopefully prevent someone walking onto one of the train cars placing something there and then leaving the car. I have brought this to ST personell's attention yet this situation has not changed.
Posted by: JDH on July 7, 2005 04:14 PMBill, Very interestin...I wonder if the brits will reconsider hosting the olympics now? How sad, they go from sheer joy to utter grief in a matter of 24 hours. : (
Posted by: rolling eyes on July 7, 2005 04:49 PMFly the Union Jack in support.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on July 7, 2005 05:13 PMal qaeda can't bomb what isn't there
Posted by: Anonymous on July 7, 2005 05:29 PMUnder "Enquiry Category," choose "Condolences-London Bombings."
Scroll to the end (as of now, it's the very last comment) of this Captain's Quarters thread, and I've posted some US and UK flag pinback button designs (for Tecre and Badge-a-Minit machines).
Still more majestic shalt thou rise,
More dreadful from each foreign stroke.
As the loud blast that tears the skies,
Serves but to root thy native oak!
As to the various ideas about how to deal with the perpetrators: Get rednecks from 49 of the 50 states (every state's got 'em). Give them some beer...they can provide the arsenal and ammo, and turn them loose in London for a bit. Shoot, send them to Gitmo and the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Watch the results.:)
Only one state is exempted...Alabama. Those rednecks will be busy with a quick trip down to Aruba to "chat" with some Dutch wimps. Then they'll catch up with the rest of the group after they're done.
Posted by: Danny on July 7, 2005 06:23 PMSince Spain caved in and got bombed anyway, the jackals of terror have hunted like their animal counterparts by targeting the weakest creatures and softest defense of the herd.
Today, to interrupt the G-8 conference they avoided the tight security of the conference itself and attacked London instead - a place with strong Muslim presence and widespread sympathy for the P.A. and AlQeada.
Attacking the weakest and those most likely to capitulate, seeking out the ones who cry the loudest and are most likely to beg for mercy leads me to believe that places like Hollywood, S.F., Seattle and Boston should be vary wary of their condition.
Posted by: Baynative on July 7, 2005 06:33 PM9/11 wasn't your fault; your view was the conventional wisdom. But now you know better, or you should. If you succeed in ending this war, and another 9/11--or worse--happens, it will be your fault, and the blood of the victims will be on your hands.
Posted by: ScottM on July 7, 2005 06:53 PMYou remember the domino theory during the Cold War? This is the domino theory in reverse. If we can bring democracy to the heart of the Middle East, we can change the balance and we are already seeing positive results.
Do you think that Libya would have given up their weapons without the Iraq invasion? Do you think we would have rolled up the A. Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network without our close working with Pakistan? Do you think Syria would have pulled out of Lebanon? Do you think there would be initial elections in Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
The biggest risk right now is with Iran. I sure hope we have clandistine operatives in there right now trying to tip that government over as well.
Are you so ignorant or so naive that you don't recognize any of this? Educate yourself!
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on July 7, 2005 06:58 PMI bet the UW has a doubling of enrollment next year of students from Islamic countries -- "
Bill -- actually, the irony of things is, the kind of groups behind terrorist attacks like this are JUST as happy to kill liberal Americans as conservative.
Note, in the last elections, Washington D.C. voted 91% liberal... yet they were one of the first targets hit. New York City is also no bastion of conservatism...
This is NOT a liberal vs conservative issue, to them. It is the West vs the Arab world (and, even more so, the part of the Arab world that agrees with them. If you're willing to be "infected" by the west, then they can care less about you.)
You are correct about them not caring whether they hit a liberal or conservative city. Actually, given their views on homosexuality, sexual liberation, the role of women, and religious tolerance, they probably view liberals as their antithesis. Oh wait, liberals are also intolerant with regard to religion. The only difference is that the jihadists are intolerant of anyone who does not agree with their version of Islam, while the liberals are intolerant only of Christians.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on July 7, 2005 07:06 PMThen you're a terrorist and all decent people should pray that you die soon.
Posted by: ScottM on July 7, 2005 07:13 PMLiberals: Is it sinking in yet? How many more Madrid’s to convince you that this is neither a drill nor game? The world is not Hollywood Hills or L.A. trimmed-lawn suburbia.
These devils are playing for keeps--no diversity, no inclusion, and no tolerance. You think they will chat over a frothy latte? Crush them. Profile them. Watch them. Remember 9-11? Americans jumping out of skyscrapers? Charred American bodies hung on bridges? I say time for talk is done. Lock & load. Send in the assassins. The truly brutal only understand brutality.
Perfect example of the insanity of the left.
You say for yourself "Liberals, like me, want to believe that we are different from them [the enemy], that we believe in honor and virtue, that we don't have to reduce ourselves to their level to fight them.” Masturbate on your own time asshole, don't put my country in peril for your silly sentimental stupidity.
Try a moment in reality clown, deluding yourself in the face of the enemy is a great way to get yourself your family, and your countrymen killed. In War, kill or be killed is the test and there is no room for fanciful notions.
What honor and virtue exists in a liberal belief that places blind partisan hate of our President above providing for our own survival. Your typical shallow liberal ignorance of history while appalling is indicative of the widespread problem America must confront from within. If you were to succeed in the name of your idiotic fantasies, we would all lose in reality.
Wkae up. You are a sick joke on yourself.
Thank God for George W. Bush.
I think people keep forgetting that Islamic hatred for the U.S. and the West pre-dates Bush and even Clinton. Ever hear of the 1979 Hostage Crisis in Iran? I was only 5 years old, but I remember the images of our fellow citizens being paraded through the streets.
The radical elements of Islam hate us for a variety of reasons, mainly for being successful while their culture peaked in the Middle Ages. They've hit us before: Beirut in 1983, the World Trade Center in 1993, Somalia in 1993, the USS Cole, the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and of course, September 11, 2001. They were emboldened by non-responses or weak repsonses to their attacks. We can't treat them with kid gloves anymore. We must defeat them completely and totally. They started the war, but we can end it.
Posted by: MES on July 7, 2005 08:09 PMThanks to Fred for posting the link to the British embassy.
And, though it seems almost certain that this attack was made by Islamic extremists, we do not yet have proof that they were the ones responsible -- which is why I did not blame them in my original post.
Posted by: Jim Miller on July 7, 2005 08:29 PMWe don't question your resolve. We question your ability to draw a distinction between good and evil...right and wrong. I'll make the same deal with you I made with the lovely lady in Carnation. We'll kill all the people who want to hurt you, so you can keep hugging all the trees you can find.
Otherwise, keep sitting around singing Kum Bah Ya while sucking on your soy whatever and leave the real work to people with a backbone and a real view of the world that actually values life. Begin by introducing yourself to a callous from lifting something heavier than an ipod.
Posted by: Danny on July 7, 2005 08:30 PMYou are one sick puppy. Get some help!
Posted by: Splatter on July 7, 2005 08:43 PMYour ignorance about what is going on in Iraq and the Middle East is absolutely appalling. You really need to get your information from sources other than the New York Times or the PI. To think none of this would have happened if we had not gone into Iraq is ludicrous. What Al-Qeada did not expect was President Bush's reaction. And they aren't going to like Prime Minister Blair's either. The victims and survivors of the London blasts deserve true justice, not weenie diplomacy.
Posted by: Burdabee on July 7, 2005 09:54 PMA religious war? Yes. A battle between good and evil? Maybe. Conflict of civilization and savagery? Absolutely!
Holy War? Not in my opinion.
Understand them? Sympathize with them? Screw that. Those who advocate such nonsense in time of war are giving aid and comfort to the enemy and are thus traitors. We have got to understand that there IS no fence, people. Obstruction is NOT patriotic in time of war. It is sedition- and those who act so are deserving only of a cell next to Abdul in Gitmo and a trial for treason. They have no place in this fight. Until we understand and deal with that fact, America will continue to be hamstrung by these worthless cowards.
Ronsch- I am not advocating burning liberals at the stake. I am advocating kicking them the hell out of the way so we can get the job done.
Britain is paying the price for giving a legislative voice to moonbats. We paid nearly ten times as a high a price on 9/11, and still these shrieking traitors are given a voice in our midst. We say that we stand with Britain- and rightly so- but until we rid ourselves of the socialist liberal menace within our own borders, we cannot entirely be the ally that Britain needs right now.
Choices need to be made, and our time is running out. We can debate the issue until we pass out from anoxia, and we will continue to be vulnerable. The time for debate passed long ago. The moonbats just want to convince us that it hasn't.
Put down the gavel and pick up your swords.
Posted by: ERNurse on July 7, 2005 10:30 PMtell me--how will these people contribute to society? will they be on welfare? same is true with assimilation; you come here by choice, you should adopt our ways by choice; enough of the "I'm different" arrogant nose-thumbing--if you miss your culture so much, why not go back? I welcome them (if productive citizens), but I will not be forced to yield to THEIR cultures in my country. Will their cultures yield to me if I go there? Fair is fair.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 7, 2005 10:32 PMAl Queda needed ca$h to fund the attacks. Gold is a decent way to launder money. Diamonds are good, too, but they're harder to sell quickly en mass. Gold is more "liquid", if bulkier.
Posted by: Jeannette on July 7, 2005 11:11 PMI knew the Brits were allowing too many Islamofascists to hang out in England, but this really spells it out.
Posted by: Shannon K on July 7, 2005 11:42 PMI take solace in the fact that SEA forbids local police to ask about one's citizenship status. (look up the ordinance!) I hear very little from our senators and the likes of McDermott. I'm bracing for the "it's somehow OUR fault" spin. Then, pop goes my weasel.
Maybe we would be better off here with patriots like Dick Durbin (IL) or Jane ('I'm kinda sorry now') Fonda. Seattle sleeps with its back door unlocked and wide open.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 8, 2005 06:28 AM"Will their cultures yield to me if I go there?" Never mind if we go there, it seems like their culture doesn't yield to us HERE! It is the most intolerant thing I've seen. The European heritage of this country is treated like a starting block to build a society - it is there purely to be assimilated into whatever culture comes along and in and of itself has no value. It really is pathetic!
Posted by: fred on July 8, 2005 07:54 AMI am angry at a lot of people, so read on, because this could mean you.
First and foremost, I am angry at Islamic fundamentalists and their desire to kill innocent people in the name of their god and their ideology. I am angry at a group that cannot allow others to believe differently then they, who feel the need to demonize their enemies, who marginalize others in their belief that their way is superior and that those who don't follow their way are contemptible. I am angry that they believe children are expendable.
I am also angry at those on this board who, in their anger advocate or speak out in favor of inhumane responses to such actions. I am angry that they cannot see that it is critical that we maintain a higher moral standard despite the cost. We ARE better than these "creatures". I am angry that someone would even suggest that they would prefer terrorists to bomb their political opposites as a punishment for political views. I am angry that anyone would suggest mass killings of innocents in efforts to get the perpetrators. We don't defeat this enemy be becoming like them, we defeat them by being intolerant to what they do. However, we respond in a dignified and moral way. Yes, that includes war, attacking another nation if that is what it comes to, and detaining and interrogating the prisoners. It means that we do capture them, not kill them outright. It means that we treat them AS prisoners, but we treat them humanely. It means that we DO use coercive tactics but we do not torture them. If we were at war with a nation, there would be no debate as to our right to collect prisoners of that nation for detention. Since our enemy knows no flag and adheres to no rules of war, we are forced to use tactics outside of the normal scope, but while we are at war with a borderless enemy, we must neutralize him, for the duration if necessary. This enemy declared war on us a long time ago but we did not "accept" this "declaration" because it did not come from a "nation". That was a mistake. These people consider themselves as a nation and we need to change our perception and treat them as such. If they act as infiltrators and spies, we treat them no differently than captured KGB agents.
Finally, I am angry at those who undermine our efforts to conduct this war. I am angry at people, who through their words, and efforts contribute to the injury and death of our soldiers, who provide encouragement to the enemy, who weaken our efforts and prolong the war, who, for political gain put our soldiers, our people, and our nation at greater risk.
There is a LOT of anger going on. Many times it is inappropriately acted upon. Islamists are angry, so they blow up people. Conservatives are angry so they advocate indiscriminate retaliation. Liberals are angry so they advocate undermining the war. All this anger is misdirected. We can see how the killing of innocents is wrong, but sometimes we cannot see how allowing innocents to be killed is wrong. One should seriously consider the impacts of certain types of dissention in this country before embarking on said dissentious course.
I have many issues with the war in Iraq, but I will focus on just a couple. When President Bush pronounced to the world that he would defeat terrorism, he made a promise. He promised that he would not only pursue the terrorists wherever they may be, but he promised to go after the countries that enable those terrorists. When the UN made resolution after resolution against Iraq those too were promises. The difference comes in whether one follows up a promise or not. You see, no one embarks on a major undertaking with the expectation of losing. The choices any person or group are almost always predicated on the fact that the reward exceeds the price or risk. Hitler would not have invaded Czechoslovakia unless he though he could get away with it. He would not have invaded Poland unless he though he could get away with it. The success of those events and reaction of Europe convinced him that he could press on and take all of Europe. Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait unless he thought he could get away with it. He would not have defied the UN unless he though he could get away with it. In those cases, the acting party decided that they could attain their goals using the methods employed. The same thing goes for the terrorists. They methods they employ are based on the expectation of ultimate success. The methods they employ are also based on their own capabilities, capabilities that stem from the support of governments both passive and active, the support of moneyed benefactors, and the support of powerful influencers such as media and high profile personalities. This brings me back to promises made. Part of the reason these terrorists became so bold is that there were few significant reprisals for their actions. In the same way Hitler moved on Poland and Hussein defied the UN, Al Qaeda flew planes into our buildings. Ultimately it was because they could and that the reprisals had insufficient deterrent effect. Now, when President Bush announced that he would pursue the nations that supported terrorism, he basically set the stage for action. The choice was, rattle the saber and hope it is enough, or draw the saber and demonstrate our commitment to living up to our promises. It is fair to debate whether Iraq was the best choice for an operation, but the stage had also been set there as well. With promises being made at the UN, the choice was to continue to prove that promises meant nothing or to prove that they did. I believe that the lack of consequences in the past was a key factor in the terrorist activity leading up to and including 9/11. Without the resolve to back up our promises, our enemies will be emboldened to act. It does not get any simpler than that.
Iraq was a promise kept. Now, some people want us to renege on that promise and others. That is a dangerous position to be advocating. The thing is, the debate about Iraq belongs BEFORE we took action. And that debate DID occur. It occurred BEFORE the war. And the result was overwhelmingly in FAVOR of action. The congress granted President Bush the authority to act. The fact that they did not like his decision is moot. If they did not trust his ability to act, they were wrong to have given him the authority to do so. NOW they are wrong for challenging his decision after the fact. That brings us back to the concept of one's expectation of the results of one's actions. In many cases throughout history, the winner of a conflict was not always the one with the bigger army, the better equipment, and the best trained, or any of those factors. The winner quite often was the one with the greater will to win. Wars are won by will in far greater weight then in anything else. I would say that will is THE determining factor in success in any conflict. Obviously will is not enough. A greater force can sap the will of another army, but not always. The revolutionary war was won by will, not by military might. Vietnam was lost by will not by military might. And, Iraq will be won or lost by will alone. The consequences of this outcome will have long lasting impacts on the security of our nation. At this point, it does not matter whether we should have gone into Iraq. The fact is we are there now. We either complete the job and fulfill our promises to rebuild that nation and leave it with a stable and free society or we cut and run and have the world know with certainty that our word is null and void and that we have no resolve. That is the stakes. That is the goal of the terrorists: to prove they have resolve, to prove that we do not. Their victory will ensure increased attacks on all nations because the terrorists will have unimpeachable proof that their tactics will ultimately succeed. Bombings, beheadings, gross atrocities will be the weapons of choice in the future. Tactics that have been proven to bring down the mighty.
If will is the factor that determines the outcome, then will is the place where we must consider here and now. As far as our enemy is concerned, we MUST make them believe that they cannot succeed. We MUST make them sure that WE will prevail. We MUST prove to them that their tactics are ineffectual. There is a down side to that. Once an enemy realizes their tactics are not succeeding, they will change them. With an enemy of this nature, that could result in greater atrocities than we have yet seen. Yet, even then we must prevail. We must continue to demonstrate OUR resolve and OUR willingness to see this to the end and DEFEAT them. Since they have shown little regard for decency and life, since they have shown that our very existence is provocation to them, no amount of diplomacy or concessions will achieve an end satisfactory to our nation. The only solution is the demonstration of our willingness to defeat them despite their tactics.
Our goal is to defeat the will of the enemy. His goal is to defeat ours. Any indication that the enemy's will is faltering will bolster our own will. However, the opposite is true as well. Any indication that our will is faltering will embolden the enemy's will. Unfortunately, from the very first minute of this conflict, parts of our country have shouted from the very mountain tops just how little will they have to win the war. They demonstrate clearly for our enemies that we don't want to fight. They give clear indication that enemy tactics are successful. In effect, they give aid and comfort to the enemy and spur them on to continued fighting because they tell the enemy in clear messages that if they continue in their tactics, the United States will be defeated.
As I said before, the debate about whether we go to war is over. We are now at war, and the ONLY debate we should have is on what tactics are most appropriate for prosecuting that war. It is marginally fair to state that you are unhappy about our decision to go to war, but beyond that, anything else will embolden the enemy. Think very long and about what is at stake here. It is almost IMPOSSIBLE to be pro America while actively dissenting on ongoing conflict. It is bordering on treason for a public official to undermine the war effort, the Commander in Chief and the military publicly for all the world to see. We have started down this path, and there are but two choices: to win or to lose. There is no "suing for peace" with this enemy. Now, that does not mean you have to become militaristic and be a war monger. You can be a peacenik, but you need to consider that unless you want to see the United States harmed, you should cease criticism of the war itself until after it is won. There is plenty of time to castigate the people who made what you perceive as errors AFTER we have finished the job. However, if you persist in presenting disunity and a weakened resolve to the enemy, you take direct responsibility for the lives of all Americans, Iraqis and foreign terrorists that will die subsequently. The quickest way to end the war is to be united, to demonstrate unshakable resolve, and to have the enemy surrender. Or, YOU can surrender to the enemy. Anything else will just prolong the killing. This goes infinitely more so for our public leaders. What they do for political gain is completely unconscionable.
Apparently, these islamics don't seem to realize that by hitting the brits they've gotten a tiger by the tail what a bunch of bafoons!!
Posted by: Laurie on July 8, 2005 08:57 AMVery well put! I took (and HOPE) that the 'solutions' of some posters here are coming from the same anger that you rightfully have, I do not think they literally want SF bombed, or to nuke someplace, or to go around slaughtering anyone that looks like a Muslim. It is a way to release some frustrations.
Again, great post and really summarizes the issues well!
Posted by: fred on July 8, 2005 09:07 AMPosted by: Laurie on July 8, 2005 09:12 AM
There is much to agree with in your comments. We would not have the problems we have today in the Middle East if it were not for the liberal insistence on abandon from reality. There is no rational basis upon which American conservative policies can be held as bearing any causal relationship to the terrorist activities related to 9/11 or Iraq. Obdurate liberal delusions manifested by moral blindness especially demonstrated to the world by the Clinton administration invite and nurture terrorists.
Notions of rhetorical fair play aside, when you say, “Conservatives are angry so they advocate indiscriminate retaliation,” I have not witnessed ANY of arbitrary revenge manifested by any conservative individual or group of individuals. If it exists (which I am sure it does in some small way somewhere) it has been amazingly absent both in the Bush administration and the American discourse. So called indiscriminate retaliation, has not been advocated by anyone conservative, but indiscriminate pusillanimity masquerading as nuanced diplomacy is the liberal mantra. Such Madelyn Allbright madness is what caused our current problems, and even indiscriminate retaliation would serve us far better than that.
Apparently referring to Al Qaida et al, you say that “we MUST make them believe.” Sorry, we can only make those who surround them (axis of evil governments and countries) believe anything useful. That is the genius of the Bush Doctrine, that the only thing useful they need to believe is their own eyes when they see the DEAD TERRORISTS BODIES stacked and broken terrorist infrastructure rended. That is not indiscriminate retaliation, but simple practical necessity. Nothing less will suffice.
You go on to say that “It is almost IMPOSSIBLE to be pro America while actively dissenting on ongoing conflict” and “It is bordering on treason for a public official to undermine the war effort.” Liberal Democrats are cowardly anti-American dissenters without a cause except petty resentful partisanship and they are proudly treasonous without apology. I acknowledge that they have the right to believe whatever foolish idiotic nonsense they like, but their open expressions of lying partisan hatred are only thinly veiled substitutes for loyal opposition amounting to seditious treachery that gives aid and comfort to our enemies. Even as many of them are believe their own lies, they are not entitled to any respect or consideration.
Your comment, “There is no "suing for peace" with this enemy,” is absolutely correct. We must KILL EVERY ONE OF THEM UNTIL THERE ARE NONE LEFT TO COME AFTER US.
As for the liberals. That's why we have locks on our doors, jails, and the right to keep and bear arms.
Thanks.
The thing is, and I could ahve mentioned this in the previous post, anger is ok, but it is how one EXPRESSES ones anger that matters.
In teh case of those who might say "nuke em till they glow", even if they would not personally do that, the statement provides ammunition for liberals who ned little excuse to lump all conservatives into the bin of "right wing, warmongering, hate-ridden, xenophopes". If we appear hateful, we will be marginalized as such. That polarizes the debate.
As for liberals who are angry at the war in Iraq, they too must consider how thier words affect others. Even if they don't hate America and have no intention of assisting terrorism and causing American casualties, their wrds and actions might acheive that end anyway. If liberals really want to help America, they can spend less time berating the country and more time taking about its virtues and how they would achieve positive results regarding the crisis we face.
The message is: use your anger constructively, not destructively.
Posted by: Eyago on July 8, 2005 09:54 AMYou think I am kidding -- looks like they got this Massouey guy held in one of those high class country club prisons in virginny -- same place they just sent the cover blower -- must be real hard on him --
For the gitmo jihad boys they are spending more than 1-1/2 times the amount per day on meals than they are spending for US forces meals --
hey >> isn't a whole hell of a lot of things wrong with these pictures????
Posted by: Bill on July 8, 2005 10:07 AMYour long post is definitely Churchillian...England needed him then and we need more of you & your straight thinking, today.
Thanks!
To me, it's a matter of Americans deciding WHEN we will, as Shakespeare said, "...screw your courage to the sticking post..." and take care of this festering problem. No p.c. fears, just admission and action. Look how fast cities and insurance companies ban certain breeds of dogs. At a minimum, let's clear the air and admit who is doing this. We should expect their populace to turn in these mad dogs or we assume tacit approval of such dogs.
I'd rather (honestly and with respect) step on a few ethnic toes and hurt some ethnic feelings than step on parts of bodies and human goo in my city as a result of some breaucrat's p.c. fears of lawsuits for not stopping a terrorist; Americans "on the street" understand this--we do not need more Londons to "get the message."
And again, in solemn respect, may London accept my sympathies, prayers and help in any way. I just sent that very message to their counsulates.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 8, 2005 10:38 AM
the point is, what will finally move Americans? I fear the 9-11 shock and disgust prompting action is just a memory like a bad snowstorm; I hope we have not declined to passive, appeasing victims; that never worked on the school playground--it never will work in today's dangerous world where minutes make a difference with sophisticated armaments and explosives;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 8, 2005 11:03 AMRonsch says things like that Al Queda is being ignored by Bush, that conservatives just like the terrorists themselves, don't seem to care if innocent people are hounded, harassed, tortured, or killed, and goes on to say that he hears “talk from the right” about “let's torture them and then kill them.” He provides no evidence for anything he says on the pretense that his word alone will suffice. Beyond his dubious authenticity, it appears that we are left to rely on the words of Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and/or Harry Reed? Talk about an echo chamber.
Ronsch says that conservatives just like the terrorists themselves, don't seem to care if innocent people are hounded, harassed, tortured, or killed. What substantiates such a statement? Absolutely nothing.
He says that Bush is destroying whatever respect there was (presumably overseas) but he fails to say where, when, how, why, or what he thinks (feels) is warrant for such a statement. Does he mean *was* during the Clinton administration, and *respect* for Madelyn Allbright? In a recurrent theme, he says that “Bush is turning us into a bully thrashing about the world without regard to collateral damage,” but again skips the basis for his statement. That's because there is none.
Ronsch like his liberal Democrat friends is indoctrinated into a belief that emotions are the equivalent of thoughts and accusations are the same as evidence or rational basis. He has no evidence of anything he says because what he says is patently untrue, but lacking facts of course doesn’t slow him down, because his emotions require expression. And he believes that the depth of his angst establishes the significance of his validation. In reality, he's probably just constipated.
Then, as if to pretend that a nice pseudo-truism makes all of his foregoing nonsense mean something reasoned, he preaches, “the best way to spread democracy is by example (and believe me it is the best way to be a parent as well).” Never mind the fact that such a nebulous statement has no bearing whatsoever on the subject at hand. How about those Red Sox?
Petty emotionalism is incompatible with truthfulness. No matter what Ronsch or those like him believe, intellectual integrity is important, and his statements prove with no doubt that he has no concept of normal honesty.
On the brighter side, guys like this are amusing. My personal favorite “Ronsch the liberal victim remark” is his “as the conservatives start burning the liberals at the stake.” Doesn't he know that open fires are illegal in Washington State?
I truly pity any children this nitwit raises.
I also recognize you likely couldn't care less about my opinion. This is no attempt to persuade you to my point. Like I said to Ronsch earlier, it is the utter and complete inability to discern between good and evil that renders those liberal opinions worthless. If you care about their opinions, more power to you. I don't.
The moral high ground is to kill those who plot and initiate these attacks as quickly as possible. That is my opinion, and in my anger I will comfortably express it... and will not in any way sully or disrespect the memories of those innocents who were slaughtered yesterday, or almost 3 years ago on 9/11.
Posted by: Danny on July 8, 2005 12:57 PMI don't know what to do about the seditious liberals. Some may be convinced to keep their criticism to themselves for the duration, but many of them are so brainwashed (see David Horowitz's book on Islamofascist-loving liberals) or so politically selfish that they'll never contribute positively to the national will. (BTW, not all liberals have been seditious. Some did come out in favor of the war, even during the last election.)
Posted by: Shannon K on July 8, 2005 01:03 PMI am not addressing the appeasment branch of the western world either. I am more intersted in dealing with the left leaning crowd that wants justice but is uncomfortable with the brand of justice they perceive comes from the right. I think it quite important to clarify the fact that justice at any cost is NOT a valid strategy and though there may be differences in levels and intensity, the right does NOT want innocent life to be sacrificed for the cause of justice. When the right uses hyperbole in their language, it makes many nomral people wonder if America is becoming as bad as those they say are evil. It makes things even worse for these people when they feel that they become a party to attrocities by being an American.
Yes, there are those who cannot seem to grasp the concepts of the stakes and the nature of the enemy and what constitutes activity hostile to US interests. People forget that in WWII, the Japanese (and Germany in a sense) did not decalre war on us simply because we were an easy and logical target. We did much to provoke their ire though our covert actions to help the allied nations in Europe and the beseiged nations in the Pacific and Asia. That means that the nations covertly aiding our enemies are legitimate targets of our foreign policy. But I digress. The point, is, if we use measured and reasonable responses that demonstrate a care for innocent life, we will more likely help sway the opinions of reasonable minded people, and that is a goal worth having.
There is nothing wrong with swift justice, people should just leave out the hyperbole when expressing their desires. They would do well to demonstrate a concern for innocent life. The liberals will have less ammunition with which to use against you to sway people to THEIR view of the world.
Again, well said. I believe that we differ in assigning value to the appeasment branch versus left-leaning people. It is because I value life that I'm not inclined to make a distinction between the two, though I'm not willing to argue the finer points. That is simply my stand.
Right is right, period (not political right, but right versus wrong). We agree on the fundamentals.
Posted by: Danny on July 8, 2005 02:54 PMNancy's comments are:
“I extend my condolences to the victims and their families of the horrific and senseless terrorist attacks in London. The thoughts and prayers of all Americans are with the people of Great Britain.
The actions of cowards against innocent people will not prevail; our resolve to fight terrorism around the world will not be deterred. We join President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and all the leaders of the G-8 Summit in fighting terrorism."
Posted by: timman on July 8, 2005 04:37 PMOh yes, of course, WW2 was all the US's fault. Silly me thinking Germany invading most of Europe had anything to do with it.
This is why I think Western society is ultimately doomed. Half of it apparently hates itself so much, it blames itself for everything, and is unwilling to fight back or criticize others. And it's going to drag down the rest of us.
Posted by: Jeremy on July 8, 2005 05:34 PMVery nicely said. Thank you.
I am not for indiscriminate killing. I am, however, all for hunting down these monsters and killing them. And I rightly call them monsters because they exist only to destroy innocent lives. Not only do they do so without mercy, but they also seek to exact as much misery and suffering from their victims as possible. They wage war against humanity. They have given up all semblance of humanity. Therefore, they must be hunted down as dangerous animals, which is what they have chosen to become, and destroyed without qualm or quarter. They chose this way, not us.
Is this the mark of a civilized society? I submit that indeed it is. In order to defend civilization and freedom, we must be prepared to destroy all threats to civilization without hesitation. In this case, that means that we must be even more ruthlessly determined to kill the enemy than they are to destroy us. That's a very difficult truth to come to terms with in a civilized society, and is the object of agonizing and sober reflection- as well it should be.
But in prosecuting such a war without quarter, does a free society completely step outside the realm of civilization? No- although that is exactly the mantra that those among us who give aid and comfort to these beasts continue to scream in our ears. Make no mistake: war, no matter how brief, is a brutal, ghastly event. But civilization can and does survive. It has before, and will again- but only if civilized nations go forth with an unwavering resolve to see the war through with only one conclusion in mind: complete and utter annihilation of the threat.
We fought the empire of Japan without quarter. Few prisoners were taken, because the bushido code required that all fight to the death and never be taken alive. They killed our medics, bombed our hospitals, infiltrated our lines, snuck into medical stations and slit the throats of the wounded, raped nuns, and massacred civilians. So we met them on their terms with the resolve that there could be no other end but complete annihilation. And yet, at the end of it, we extended the hand of a civilized and compassionate nation to our former mortal enemy.
Yes, a civilized nation can fight a war without quarter.
This is exactly the nature of the war we must fight today. This is not an enemy whom we can "bomb to the bargaining table." They have no emissaries or diplomats, but only cowardly thugs and murderers. They don't want us to submit; they want us to DIE, and nothing else will satisfy them. Therefore, we must destroy every single one of the enemy until he no longer has the capacity to wage war against the civilized world. There is no other option. One does not reason with a rabid dog, because there can be no reasoning; the only real option is to put a bullet in the dog's brain.
There is no room for further debate in this matter. While we dither with our fear of offending the mythical Arab Street, the Arab Street slaughters innocents on buses and subway trains, in office buildings and centers of free trade. Any hope of preserving civilized society in the face of this elusive threat will not be found in the halls of the UN or the Harvard Debating Society. That hope lies only in the heart of every human being who sees the cowardly, murdering bastards for who they really are and who forges within himself and herself the determination to unite with other civilized people to destroy the animals wherever they may find shelter, and to destroy the nations who shelter them. Peace and victory will not come by any other means.
Civilization is ideal, but is preserved at great cost. That is something the opponents of this war chronically ignore, and we give audience to these voices of "patriotic dissent" only to our great peril.
Posted by: ERNurse on July 8, 2005 06:06 PMSeriously, you hit all cylinders. Rabid animals do not reason. They must be dispatched for the community's safety. This simple life lesson is lost on liberals. They would reason with or coax a cornered, mouth-foaming, hissing opossum in their attic.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 8, 2005 07:39 PMYou missed my point, but I will forgive you because I did a dismal job of making it. I did not mean to imply that we provoked Germany or Japan into aggression. I meant to imply that our tacit support of the enemies of Japan and Germany caused them to turn their attention to us. Had we stayed TRUELY neutral, they would not have declared war on us at THAT time, though quite likely later when they secured their repsective positions. My main point however, was that it was logical for them to target us because we did aid their enemies, just like the US now targets certain goverments that aid terrorists.
Arab terrorism does not survive on its own. It requires money and support. It requires complicent governments as well as lax ones. It requires fear, it requires dissention in its enemies' ranks. To win that war, we have to confront all aspects of the enemy's infrastructure, even the unwitting.
Posted by: Eyago on July 8, 2005 08:04 PMGreat job drawing the historical perspective. The critics of America (Including the internal ones) always seem to forget how much we had to endure with Japan and what we did AFTER we won. It is their constant tearing down of our nation that steams me so much. We're not perfect, but far and away, we ARE the good guys, but you would never know it listening to MSM and the democrtic machine.
Posted by: Eyago on July 8, 2005 08:09 PMWhen you say you are concerned about the “left leaning crowd that wants justice but is uncomfortable with the brand of justice they perceive comes from the right,” you are fooling yourself. There are certainly those of the left that are fall within your description, but they are an extremely small minority, there are literally NONE of them in the Democrat party leadership currently, and these types of people are not in any way important to current events or policy matters. In fact they are the ones that need to wise up.
Under the leadership of the Bush administration we are currently using measured and reasonable responses that demonstrate a care for innocent life far beyond any that have ever been used by any country in war before. If we were not, you can have ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that we would damned well know about it! Given the hatred of the 4th estate for the Bush administration and with all of the imbedded reporters, and information transparency, and liberal officials hanging over their shoulders, not to speak of the whole damned democrat party just waiting for any mistake, there is no legitimate argument. We would know.
You are not paying attention. Liberals don’t care about facts, evidence or rationale - they make everything up as they go along. For a wonderful example, see the comments made above by Ronsch. No one with an ounce of integrity and self respect needs care what he believes.
Instead I suggest we continue to recognize the truth for what it is and conclude that liberals and their opinions truly do not matter. Their lies are the real danger because our allies overseas are not bound by the interests involved with our national politics. If they see us bend to the liberal democrats, they will conclude that the democrats have a point and that Americans are a weak corrupt people like the Democrats. They all remember Bill Clinton and America for sale, and we cannot survive his brand of carelessness and corruption any more.
I have no patience for hand wringing about what liberals (Democrat or Republican) might believe. Screw them. It is impossible to reason anyone out of anything they were never reasoned into in the first place. As far as I’m concerned they need to go along, get the hell out of the way, or be stomped into oblivion. Their ideology is bankrupt and corrupt and they either need to change or get murdered by our enemies. The real goal is in this regard is to prevent their insane nonsense from allowing any more of the rest of us sane people to be killed than is absolutely necessary.
Thank God for our American Constitution, GW Bush, and conservative Republicans, and - please God - for our troops.
Eyago, I understand what you are saying, and I see your point. Having studied WW2 history (on which I have a few dozen works, since it is my hobby), I think I see your point regarding the de facto aiding of belligerents prior to 12-7-41. While this in itself may have provoked the Japanese to attack us, it in fact was not. Please pardon me for digressing from the main point to explain.
Japan viewed herself as the holder of suzerainty over the world centuries before Commodore Perry led his ships into Tokyo Bay in the late 1800s. The first Emperor, Jimmu, promoted the philosophy of "hakko ichiu," meaning "all 8 corners of the world under one Imperial roof." Commodore Perry unwittingly opened the way for Japan to acquire the technology needed to attain that goal. Britain followed suit. A large percentage of Japanese battleships in 1941 had their keels laid in British shipyards. The bombs that destroyed the USS Arizona were very likely to have been made from steel that the United States sold to them- steel that was likely yielded from scrapped American battleships.
History laughs.
But beyond that, the policy of isolationism served no other purpose but to hamstring our military's preparedness while giving our enemies time to gather the strength to punch our lights out.
We see the same truth today. While Clinton diddled Monica, al Qaida infiltrated, plotted and planned. When they struck, our leaders vacillated and, in typical liberal fashion, attempted to meet the menace with litigation and negotiation. Obviously, it didn't work. Now that we have a president who is capable of leading us, what do we see from the liberals? Lies, treason, sedition, and giving aid and comfort to our mortal enemies.
Now the liberals among us- even within the government- continue to use the legal system against their fellow countrymen and their own government in an effort to get back into power- even at the cost of our security and our lives. No object is so dear to their hearts as political power, and no price is too high. They may sink their own ship, but by damned they'll go down at the helm. This makes them just as dangerous- if not more so- than al Qaida and as much a threat fit only to be dispatched as any terrorist. Whether it is a senator from New York, Massachusetts, or Illinois, or a hemp-smoking dropout blocking traffic on 5th Avenue, the only end fitting for him or her is a prison cell and a trial for giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war- a crime that still carries the death penalty.
It is said that fortune favors the brave. I submit that history mocks the coward. If it was not so, then the cowards among us would not exert so much energy attempting to rewrite history instead of learning from it. History is littered with the defeats and disgraces of liberals, appeasers and cowards.
No evidence for this truth speaks so eloquently as a smoking wreck: The battleships Arizona and Oklahoma; the sellout in Korea in 1953; the Bay of Pigs; the pullout from Vietnam; the abandonment of Southeast Asia to genocidal maniacs; the Iran Hostage crisis; the failed rescue attempt; USS Cole; and the ruins of the World Trade Center.
These are the wages of vacillation and appeasement. We should expect no less ignominious a fate if we listen to the deceit of the appeasers this time. These voices of sedition have no place in a free society in time of critical emergency, no matter what rights they claim to have. The security of civilized society depends on our unyielding resolve. Our only recourse, whether it be in Britain or here in the USA, is to deny the prophets of defeatism and treason a platform from which to bray, by any and all means necessary. Until we recognize the enemy within our gates and stand up against them, we will continue to fight blinded and hamstrung by the forces of treachery that hound us on every streetcorner.
When I was a soldier, I pledged to defend my country against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. Considering the acts of treason liberals have committed against this nation in time of war, the adherents of liberalism qualify as a domestic enemy.
Posted by: ERNurse on July 9, 2005 12:53 AMAs for those who refuse to support our troops, all news media should refer to them as terrorist supporters, no matter what their occupation, because that is what they are and it is high time we gave them the proper label.
Posted by: Burdabee on July 9, 2005 01:27 AMWhy are we so dang interested in "what the world thinks" while pictures of our troops dragged in Mogadishu, burned & beheaded in Iraq and our 9-11 victims are buried forever in favor of the latest reality bikini show or someone's "street opinion?"
Survival time. Screw world opinion. They only care when our checkbook is open. The lazy American mind that does not want to think nor be troubled with history will kill us all in the end. Toss in some noodle-spined politicians and you have Chamberlain's "peace paper" repeating itself. Look at poor Madrid. Sold out to appease the devil. They can never go back.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 9, 2005 08:19 AMWe have a very difficult fight ahead of us. The enemy within our borders has had more than four decades to entrench themselves within our government and our society. Getting them out is going to be very, very tedious work. But it must be done.
The question of the day is, are enough of us ready and willing to roll our sleeves up and get to it?
Posted by: ERNurse on July 9, 2005 11:40 AMMaybe what's in play here is that the liberal is building and sacrificing their big cities and public transportation in order to help the terrorist send twisted messages. Taking the chance that they'll both gain power from said actions....as if they're coconspirators.
The terrorists aren't attacking us because of our policies. They're attacking us because we exist.
If we pulled our troops from every country, and stopped purchasing oil....lived peacefully amongst ourselves on wind and solar power, hugging trees, the terrorists would still attack (more often, I may add), claiming that we're bluffing, cooking up something, or that we're buying goods from a country that they don't like. They'll make up some reason to mask their real agenda. And the perceived stupidity of the liberal for not seeing this has to be masking the simple fact that they are indeed with the terrorists under the guise: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Posted by: MB on July 10, 2005 11:13 AMLiberals think that their noncombatant (cowardly) attitude towards the terrorists makes them immune.
"I like you. I will kill you last"
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 10, 2005 11:43 AMPirate, ARRRGGHH! there--I won't even comment on your ear ring; you earned it; I'm now noticing the 'dumb male' ads run for every product; subtle--but planned? I wonder; Enough softener and even burlap will yield; don't apple maggots work from within?
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 10, 2005 07:55 PMWhen they do the screaming-child-in-the-checkout-line strategy, we need to use the bending-down-and whispering-in-the-ear-"if-you-don't-straighten-up-right-now-I-will-beat-your-ass" strategy.
Posted by: ERNurse on July 10, 2005 09:35 PMmost liberals won't remember; they got the "honey-are-you-in-a-sad-place?" query and continued on, through that store and through many schools & jobs as they aged; me? I got the habanero-stinging gluteus with the "wait-till-you-see-the-sad-place-i'm-sending-YOU!" pep talk;
like our WA politicans--time to grab their little ear lobes & whisper as above after they passed 90+ 'emergency laws'--screaming as if 3 year olds on the highway for a potty time with no exits in sight;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 10, 2005 09:49 PMI hear ya Lima-Charlie. I am done with the "therapy" culture. Screw that. It's time for a little 2x4 counseling with these liberal nutjobs. They are aiding the enemy, and it's time to open some whoopass on them.
Posted by: ERNurse on July 10, 2005 10:02 PMIt's O.K., go back to your bong.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 11, 2005 01:45 PMthese comments are often nothing more than a grown-up version of a playground, complete with namecalling, bullying, bravado and the like.
as for the comments regarding this particular approach, the repeated reference to killing strikes me as blood-thirsty, akin to the rhetoric used by terrorists and their sympathizers.
Wait! what was that? I can't hear you with your head in the sand!
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 11, 2005 04:15 PMall this invocation of god, perhaps people should read their bibles (or whatever holy book) re compassion. or alternatively, or more akin to some of the comments posted here, just get out that metallica cd "kill 'em all" and turn it up.
terrorism has afflicted many countries for much longer than our immediate experience (e.g. israel, england). attempts to solve the problem by killing the terrorists have thus far proved to be unsuccessful (e.g., see israel, england). so to continue with the lame metaphor previously invoked, who's head in the sand?
i've no need to engage with you, it was merely an observation. i hope you don't want to kill me now, but perhaps you do?
Posted by: dinesh on July 11, 2005 04:47 PMQualifies as the most bone-jarringly stupid comment uttered anywhere in the universe today!
(followed by the equally insipid Eye for eye comment)
You absolutely don't get it, do you girlie girl.
We don't want to kill you, but there are a group of people who wouldn't hesitate to separate your foolish head from the rest of you.
Your head is either in the sand or up your butt, and I don't have the interest or inclination to figure out which.
Now, as the man suggested, why don't you go back to your bong, and your delusions - maybe that'll make it all better....
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 11, 2005 05:05 PMremember that saying about knee-jerk liberals?
well, some of you have become knee-jerk conservatives.
yes, i recognize the terrorist threat. what some of you have failed to answer is the HISTORICAL point that there have always been threats such as that which these terrorists present (SEE ISRAEL, ENGLAND).
what some of you fail to be able to explain, and instead resort to some fox-pundit gobblegook lame analysis is how many terrorists can you kill before the threat is eliminated? israel's experience with islamofacists suggests a number which is higher than perhaps your cable channels can count to.
so, my comment in the original post was getting at why is revenge/retribution the basis for a national security policy?
it is so difficult for some of you to even acknowledge the possibility of the wrongheadedness of anything. (see the post and related comments re the ACLU challenging the ordinance re speech).
and, as for that "do you want to kill me now?" line, i've actually had some people who would likely be situated closer to some of your political beliefs who have suggested the same.
Posted by: dinesh on July 11, 2005 05:24 PMAnd likewise, I've had lefties suggest that (and more) to me (usually as their running away). It reminds me of the "joke" saying that a liberal once told me:
"Republicans. Whatcha gonna do with 'em?
Can't educate 'em, can't kill 'em"
Big deal.
Your original comment was: "this is a blood-thirsty group. i imagine the terrorists' rhetoric is similar to that used here, only in arabic."
Although mildly incitive, it was anything but insightful. And it had nothing to do with "the basis for a national security policy".
If you think that this in any way resembles our national security policy, you are even more pathetically naive than I originally gave you credit.
No, from your expressed attitude, you do not recognize the terrorist threat. You seek the answer to a question, but reject that answer before it is rendered.
Unlike the stupid "joke" offered up by the brain-dead liberal, Islamo-fascists are a clear and present danger. You cannot ignore them away. You cannot bribe them away. You cannot scold, shame, or reason them away. Those who try die.
The HISTORICAL solution is to employ a conscientiously applied program of force, brutal force, and nothing short of force.
You seem to imply that, because bad things continue to occur, previous applications of force haven't worked. Again, a simple-minded viewpoint. Killing your enemy is a grim reality. Deterring your enemy is its own reward.
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 11, 2005 06:24 PMthanks for answering my question. i have a better understanding of your approach to solving this current itieration of terrorism, although i don't agree. i don't believe a continued application of "brutal force" will solve the problem--it doesn't seem to have worked in israel or northern ireland. perhaps you might suggest that those countries did not bring enough force to bear, but i just don't think it will solve the problem. i sometimes feel like we are a man holding an finite supply of raid trying to eliminate an infinite supply of cockroaches.
i read these comments and was shocked to see such expressions of condolence quickly morph into a desire for killing, revenge and retribution, expressions which are inconsistent with a "culture of life" and the like. regardless of one's individual faith, i'm not aware of any faith that in this day and age would condone such calls for killing, unless practioners of those faiths have perverted their essential meanings.
anyways, thanks for the reply.
thanks for answering my question. i have a better understanding of your approach to solving this current itieration of terrorism, although i don't agree. i don't believe a continued application of "brutal force" will solve the problem--it doesn't seem to have worked in israel or northern ireland. perhaps you might suggest that those countries did not bring enough force to bear, but i just don't think it will solve the problem. i sometimes feel like we are a man holding an finite supply of raid trying to eliminate an infinite supply of cockroaches.
i read these comments and was shocked to see such expressions of condolence quickly morph into a desire for killing, revenge and retribution, expressions which are inconsistent with a "culture of life" and the like. regardless of one's individual faith, i'm not aware of any faith that in this day and age would condone such calls for killing, unless practioners of those faiths have perverted their essential meanings.
anyways, thanks for the reply.
As for terrorism, it's like a bodily infection or a home roach infestation---to answer your question, yes--you keep on killing bacteria, roaches or terrorists until the body or house is safe. Neither of the 3 will debate you rationally--they are a pestilence and want to take over the host.
You confuse revenge & retribution with survival. You body's white cells don't debate--they i.d. and kill infecting organisms. If they took your tack, you would have perished from your first cold infection. It's not bullying or bravado--like your roach comment, your body (and our country) fights off infections continuously. That's life. Infections like terrorists will not go away merely because we have medicines. Who grieves for the black plague? Who defends the poor polio germ? Same with your soft view on terror.
Sure, we can study the why's in peacetime, but--like the critical care unit--the patient is being attacked by a potentially fatal germ of terrorism and must be stopped with force--and fast. So Doctor--are you willing to stand by and watch the patient expire?
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 12, 2005 10:32 AMIf so, I can respect that. A pacifist abhors violence and declines to participate, even at their own peril. Another aspect of pacifism is that they do not, as a rule, participate in the equally (to them) distasteful pastime of foreign policy. If you are a pacifist, none of this matters to you because you simply choose to abstain.
If you aren't a pacifist, you are a coward. There isn't anything (necessarily) wrong with cowardice, per se (although It doesn't do much for me), but it isn't an enviable (or strategic) position from which to be throwing stones.
You will have to look long & hard to find anyone who will steadfastly state that this administration's foreign policy or their approach to the WOT is perfect, but it is irrefutably heads & shoulders above anything suggested by, or practiced by democrats. The cowardice shown by our previous commander in chief is largely responsible for where we are today.
How we conduct ourselves, and what response we take to the despicable violence perpetrated upon innocent civilians has a direct bearing on how, and if we are going to live our lives.
You sniff about "expressions of condolence quickly morph into a desire for killing, revenge and retribution, expressions which are inconsistent with a "culture of life" and the like." when what you're looking at is frustrated people blowing off steam.
When you come in on such a scene and declare with your supercilious, sanctimonious tone, "this is a blood-thirsty group. i imagine the terrorists' rhetoric is similar to that used here, only in arabic." you invite abuse. That you continue to respond tells me that you like it.
So tell me, girlie girl, what is your motivation? Are you trying to "Rattle the Rednecks?" If so, you're going to have to muster better arguments (and better insults). Do you wish to "shame the conservatives?" Ain't happening. Why would I be ashamed? I'm PROUD of what we've accomplished! Are you flirting with the devil? The internet affords a certain degree of anonymity, but only to a point. You are in over your head little girl.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 12, 2005 12:14 PMi'm shocked by the vitriol. blowing off steam? sure, that's an EXCUSE. if people can sit in front of their computer screens and call for the death of others (and mind you, to kill terrorists, a lot of others will die), seems crass. especially given that some, if true to their parties' stated principles, will be out in front of an abortion clinic demeaning women who are making a choice regarding their own life and body, or will support an govt that is positively medieval (talk about head in the sand) when it comes to scientific progress in the area of stem cell research. so, blow hard while trying to kill some to save others. you sitting at your computer with your education and remote con