Those Arabs would love us if we just left them alone.
It's not like they ever attacked us before we invaded Iraq. Islam is the religion of peace. It is great and wonderful and as long as you agree you'll be perfectly fine!
Seriously though, I wonder how it's possible for someone to say we are in no danger of Dhimmitude in the US right now and therefore we ought to be anti-war when the only reason there is no danger of Dhimmitude in the US right now is because we have soldiers with M-203s saying, "Allahu Akhbar THIS" over in Iraq.
With enough people like you over here, yes we are in grave danger of Dhimmitude. The only reason we currently are safe is because you are a whacko minority view.
As to you statement: --- The 2000+ dead in 9/11 are worth what is happening to people over there, both US and non-US? ---
This is completely stupid. It's not a question of "worth" at all. It'd be like me saying, "Were the victims of Bundy worth Bundy's execution?" Simply absurd! That Bundy created victims is the reason he was executed and it has nothing to do with "worth" at all--it's justice.
In the same way, the reason that we are at war with Muslim terrorists is because they attacked us. Justice demands we respond by taking them out. The only other viable response is to bend over and grab your ankles and accept Dhimmitude.
We know which side you're on. Thank God your side is a lonely side. My side is keeping them at bay.
What is your answer to that, Anonymouse? If the terrorists want to attack us again, and they would do so if they could, what is it that keeps them from doing so?
I think you'll find the answer isn't going to be "Because they'll eventually leave Iraq."
"He's the ultimate Pro-Life Small-Government candidate."
How would Ron Paul's social conservatism translate into presidential policy? Does he believe in a nation-wide law to ban abortion, or would he leave that up to the discretion of the individual states, so that some states are free to murder babies with impunity?
Or does he even think this should be legislated at any level? After all, he ran as the presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party several years ago, and that Party takes a hands-off approach to abortion.
How about immigration? Does he believe in a national policy on immigration? Or would each state have its own foreign policy on immigration? 50 foreign policies on immigration.
Steve, when did the federal government rightfully gain the authority to regulate abortion?
Ron Paul sees the immigration issue as one of the few issues the federal government has to regulate, and is pretty strongly anti-immigration, and has advocated repeal of birthright citizenship.
Never mind that Huckabee's record as a conservative is quite shaky.
Pike was the 2003 invasion of Iraq our first bout of intervention in the middle east? If you believe that a Ron Paul presidency would result in dhimmitude, who's the crazy one?
And is the murder of thousands of innocent people justice?
It's only a bit of a stretch because folks like Anonymous are few.
I'm still waiting for Anonymous to tell us why the terrorists haven't attacked us again if it's not because our military is killing the terrorists. Anonymous is taking the benefits provided by our military (protection from Islam's Dhimmitude) and using them to undermine the military.
In other words, if the military wasn't doing it's job Anonymous couldn't claim America was currently in no danger of Dhmmitude. It's because the military is doing its job that Anonymous can claim the military isn't needed because there is no threat.
But pulling a blanket over your head doesn't keep intruders out.
Onelasttime said: --- Pike was the 2003 invasion of Iraq our first bout of intervention in the middle east? ---
Do we live today with today's reality, or do we live in 1807?
Onelasttime said: --- If you believe that a Ron Paul presidency would result in dhimmitude, who's the crazy one? ---
That question is predicated on a false dilimma. Secondly, my comments were in response to being accused of being "a pro-torture war mongering nutjob" so I couldn't care less if you can't understand the reason for te response.
Keep your head in the sand.
Onemoreidiotictime said: --- And is the murder of thousands of innocent people justice? ---
"Steve, when did the federal government rightfully gain the authority to regulate abortion?"
So you're admitting that his prolife views wouldn't translate into a national policy. In that case, how are his personal views on abortion (or any other social issue) politically relevant?
As to your question, one doesn't need a special right to do what is right. One only needs a special right to do what is ordinarily wrong.
it's good to see the Whacko, conspiracy theorist warmongers are still up to no good.
the more uninformed nonsense that comes out of peter or steve's mouth, the more doomed i think this country really is.
peter said, "Seriously though, I wonder how it's possible for someone to say we are in no danger of Dhimmitude in the US right now and therefore we ought to be anti-war when the only reason there is no danger of Dhimmitude in the US right now is because we have soldiers with M-203s saying, "Allahu Akhbar THIS" over in Iraq."
i think RP recognizes there is a danger but that danger primarily results from our foreign policy. By the way, it's not necessarily an 'anti-war' position nor is it isolationism. It's an anti-"piss everyone off, blow them up in case there's a possibility they may hurt you" position.
"So you're admitting that his prolife views wouldn't translate into a national policy. In that case, how are his personal views on abortion (or any other social issue) politically relevant?"
Many crimes (excepting things like treason and high crimes) would notbe legislated at the federal level. Those decisions are left to the local level.
However, he did write the Sanctity of Life bill that would have overturned Roe vs Wade and says that life begins at conception, but the Republican led congress (or the President, who pressures Congress all the time) did not seem to want to put their money where their mouth was.
Oh yeah, but Huckster made Arkansans get their parents permission! classic...
Many crimes (excepting things like treason and high crimes) would notbe legislated at the federal level. Those decisions are left to the local level.
******************************************
That's an assertion, not an argument. Where's your supporting argument?
So you're saying, for example, that it would be wrong to have a national law that bans child prostitution or pedophilia or child pornography. Instead, each state should have the right to legalize child prostitution or pedophilia or child pornography—free of Federal interference. Is that your position?
onelasttime said... "As to your question, one doesn't need a special right to do what is right. One only needs a special right to do what is ordinarily wrong."
Would this mean that people who kill abortion doctors/ mothers are justified?
*******************************
It would mean, for example, that I don't ordinarily have the right to shoot someone, but if he breaks into my home in the dark of night, I have the right to shoot him.
I wasn't intending to make an argument, I was explicating how I understood RPs position.
But if the strict constructionist view is right (something like the compact theory as defended by Abel Upshur or federalism as opposed to nationalism), then it would seem to be wrong to take an oath to uphold the constitution and then legislate *everything* at the federal level, as though the constitution didn't exist.
So I wouldn't necessarily say that it's wrong, but that it's unconstitutional. Ultimately, I think I agree with the Anti-Federalists (I think it was Centinel) who argued that one cannot have a republic over such a vast land and with such a large population - it will end in tyranny. Freedom seems to be best preserved at the local level.
Onelasttime said: --- The reality that we live in is not divorced from the past. We live with its effects. ---
But we can't change the past. We can, however, change the future (from our own limited perspective; obviously the future is set in God's eye already, but He uses us today in the hear and now as means towards His ends). And even if I bought your bogus argument hook, line, and sinker and said, "Yeah, the Arabs are ticked at us because of something that happened 50 years ago" the fact of the matter remains that that knowledge is irrelevant in dealing with them today. Nor does it change the fact that our troops in Iraq are killing terrorists by the score, and each dead terrorist is one less terrorist that can harm an American over here.
Again, no one has answered my question. We all know that the terrorists would love nothing more than to attack America again...so why haven't they done so? Surely the terrorists are not over in Iraq waiting for Ron Paul to become elected so they can put down their arms.
And surely you can't be stupid enough to think that if we left Iraq today the terrorists wouldn't be moving in droves to attack us in America again.
Onelasttime said: --- What does it take for something to be called war? ---
Apparently not an unprovoked attack on 3,000 innocent civilians....
Onelasttime said: --- Is there such thing as unjust war? ---
Yes. Al Qaeda comes to mind.
Onelasttime said: --- If so would the killing involved be considered murder, or is it meaningfully different in anyway? ---
Since you ask for specifics, you can hvae the specifics. The legal definition of murder is: "the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way), and with no legal excuse or authority." As such, states can never murder; only individuals can commit murder, and then only if there is no legal authority commanding them to do so.
Therefore, if an unjust war occurs between states then no, murder cannot occur; however, there can still be unjustified homicide that occurs.
But since this is not the policy of what we do in Iraq, and since those who have broken the law are tried and convicted, this doesn't apply here anyway. Furthermore, if you are claiming that the US is actaully murdering people, you have to prove that charge.
Onelasttime said: --- Does war give a license for killing when it is not on the battlefield? ---
Of course the onus is on proving what constitutes the battlefield in the first place.
I don't know what has happened with Bauer, but he seems to have become more manipulator than leader. He distorts/misrepresents Huckabee's position at least three times in this short article.
I think we all need to be praying for Bauer, because I think he may be having some spiritual problems.
Kevin said: --- I don't know what has happened with Bauer, but he seems to have become more manipulator than leader. He distorts/misrepresents Huckabee's position at least three times in this short article. ---
If so then surely you could point them out, yes?
After all, you said: --- I think we all need to be praying for Bauer, because I think he may be having some spiritual problems. ---
And people who make unsubstantiated claims about other's spiritual problems may be having some spiritual problems too...
peter said, "And even if I bought your bogus argument hook, line, and sinker and said, "Yeah, the Arabs are ticked at us because of something that happened 50 years ago" the fact of the matter remains that that knowledge is irrelevant in dealing with them today."
Umm who's argument is that? it's not just 50 years ago but *for the past 50 years*.
peter said, "Nor does it change the fact that our troops in Iraq are killing terrorists by the score, and each dead terrorist is one less terrorist that can harm an American over here."
That doesn't matter due to: 1. There's a difference between insurgents and terrorists.
2. The longer bin Laden lives and is proven correct by our policies, the more credibility he has in the eyes of all Muslims. This has brought Muslims together under one banner - destroying the occupiers.
3. If you want to continue this policy, you are going to have to kill a whole lot more people, which then will make it very unpopular.
4. Bin Laden and crew have said their goal is to destroy our center of gravity, which is our economy. The longer the wars last, the better for bin Laden. The radicalized Muslims didn't defeat the Soviets overnight. In the end, our foreign policy wins, even if through the collapse of the economy.
5. NO foreign invader has successfully occupied Afghanistan in the past 300 or so years. At the least we could have learned from and implement strategies from our experience in aiding bin Laden against the Soviets.
peter said, "Again, no one has answered my question. We all know that the terrorists would love nothing more than to attack America again...so why haven't they done so? Surely the terrorists are not over in Iraq waiting for Ron Paul to become elected so they can put down their arms."
They have attacked America and they continue to do so (in the Mid-east). It was the prayer of the #2al Qaeda leader that the U.S. would not leave until at least 200,000 Americans were killed.
A reading list on foreign policy for Peter:
1. The 9/11 Commission Report
2. Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson
3. Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer (the former Chief of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit, Alec Station)
4. Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Professor Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago
5. Perfect Soldiers by Terry McDermott
6. The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright
7. A Pretext for War by James Bamford
8. Terror Incorporated or Insurgent Iraq by Loretta Napoleoni
9. 1000 Years for Revenge by Peter Lance
10. The Far Enemy by Fawaz A. Gerges Holy War, Inc. by Peter Bergen
11. Ghost Wars by Steve Coll
12. Why the Rest Hates the West: Understanding the Roots of Global Rage by Meic Pearse
13. Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force - U.S. Department of Defense - 11.2004.
Quotes from 13. 1 "Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather **they hate our policies**. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.'
2. "Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination."
Anonymous said: --- There's a difference between insurgents and terrorists. ---
Of course there is. The first word is used by those who wish to deny reality, whereas the second word is used descriptively.
Anonywuss continued: --- The longer bin Laden lives and is proven correct by our policies, the more credibility he has in the eyes of all Muslims. This has brought Muslims together under one banner - destroying the occupiers. ---
It would help if you lived in the real world. If the Muslims are all together, why is it that most of the deaths are sectarian between Shiites and Sunni right now?
Oh drat, another ugly fact ruining your delusion.
You said: --- If you want to continue this policy, you are going to have to kill a whole lot more people, which then will make it very unpopular. ---
Popularity isn't the issue. But I wonder just how popular it'll be when Muslims are blowing themselves up daily in American cities. Have you thought that more Americans will die if we listen to you? Why is it only the Muslim dead who concern you?
You said: --- Bin Laden and crew have said their goal is to destroy our center of gravity, which is our economy. The longer the wars last, the better for bin Laden. The radicalized Muslims didn't defeat the Soviets overnight. In the end, our foreign policy wins, even if through the collapse of the economy. ---
Oh yeah, the ol' "You'll be stuck in soup lines" argument. Very persuasive given...um, there are no soup lines outside.
Do you have anything that addresses reality?
You said: --- NO foreign invader has successfully occupied Afghanistan in the past 300 or so years.\ ---
No foreign invader has successfully occupied England in the past 300 or so years either.
OOOH! THAT MUST MEAN SOMETHING!!!
You said: --- At the least we could have learned from and implement strategies from our experience in aiding bin Laden against the Soviets. ---
Lessee... We're over there and doing a whole lot better than the Soviets did.
How is that not learning from the past?
When the Afghans start actually, you know, like winning battles and stuff, THEN I'll start to worry about your dumb ideas.
You said: --- They have attacked America and they continue to do so (in the Mid-east). It was the prayer of the #2al Qaeda leader that the U.S. would not leave until at least 200,000 Americans were killed. ---
They have attacked America? But I thought they wouldn't do that...
And since when is the Middle East part of America? Or do you mean all the vicious Muslim hijackings going on in Cleveland?
Perhaps you just mean Keith Ellison?
You said: --- A reading list on foreign policy for Peter ---
Thanks. I've read some of those already, and I can put the others at the end of my fantasy list.
It's been 6 years and 1 month since we entered Afghanistan. Lumping in the casualties from Iraq too, we've got 3,852 according to one wacko lib site I looked at.
That's about 634 per year.
So after 315 years, when we finally have 200,000 dead in the War on Terror, Bin Laden WILL HAVE WON!!!
Amazing peter. From this and your other rants, you give absolutely no indication that you've read anything on the list i provided.
Your 'shoot from the hip, I don't know what on God's green earth I'm talking about' response pretty much amounts to addressing subordinate issues rather than the primary point (i.e., addressing popularity rather than the fact that we're not fighting the war as a war, not to mention your *laughable* comments on the economy).
Nevertheless, continue with your whacko conspiratorial beliefs that everyone is out to get us no matter the surrounding context and that we must kill kill kill.
By the way, any reader who isn't already brainwashed into your camp can look through the above and see that I've responded to each of your claims and raised counter points that have been completely ignored the entire time.
Bernarde said, "Steve and others have posted statements of purpose from Islamic documents claiming their intentions. You're a fool to think that by simply withdrawing we'll cause their anger towards us to subside.
That's why you're out of touch with reality."
Many of those same documents have statements about their primary motivations as well. Odd that you would accept *their* intentions without listening to *their* motivations.
Peter,
Any reader who has read those books listed would know that, based on your idiotic response, you are lying about reading any of them.
Bernabe also said, "Anonymous, you're being idiotic. Peter never mentioned a global conspiracy ("everyone is out to get us") but an Islamic threat to bring the world under Sharia law."
What's funny is that this is not an *offensive* jihad due to the fact that no caliphate exists. Yeah but you knew that. I'm sure Peter does since he's read 'some of those books' (note the sarcasm of the last two sentences).
Bernabe said, "You're a fool to think that by simply withdrawing we'll cause their anger towards us to subside."
Did I say this? Ummm no. Nevertheless, you're a fool for thinking you can grab a dog by the ears without pissing it off.
Anonywuss said: --- Any reader who has read those books listed would know that, based on your idiotic response, you are lying about reading any of them. ---
Any reader who has read your lack of supporting documentation would know that, based on your idiotic response, you are lying about my not having read any of them.
You can make all the charges you want, bub, but you've proven nothing. This is no surprise, given your faulty conclusions about everything else you don't have the ability to reason at all.
Let me make it simple for you: present an argument or shut up.
To help you out: arguments are not bare assertions. When you make an assertion and present evidence for it, THEN you'll have presented an argument.
So present your evidence. Lay your cards on the table. Else go home to mamma.
peter porker (i can play on names also), you can start with the quotes that you left out of your "reasoned" response. it's quite simple to access the report.
The quotes have nothing to do with what I said, Anonywuss.
Where have I said Muslims hate Americans because of our freedom?
I haven't. In fact, I believe Muslims hate Americans because they're Muslims. Islam is NOT a religion of peace. They are required to make the entire world submit to Islam according to the Koran. Ergo, if Islam gets its way, we get Dhimmitude.
Therefore, your first quote is pointless.
When have I said that the reason we're in Afghanistan is to set up a democracy?
I haven't. We're in Afghanistan (and Iraq) to kill terrorists so they don't kill us. While setting up a democracy there may help us do that, that's not the point of why we are there. If the democracy doesn't work, we can jettison it. And I don't care if Muslims aren't pleased by that. I'm not pleased by Muslim behavior. Why is it that you're only concerned about what THEY are pleased with?
Therefore, your second quote is pointless.
Now how about you deal with what I did say instead of sticking your head...well, let's just say "in the sand"?
umm earth to peter porker? did you not see the portion of the quotes that I "**"d? You are missing the trees from the forrest. This is precisely why I don't take what you have to say seriously when it comes to foreign policy issues. The *point* of the quotes is seeing your enemy through **their** eyes, not your own. Your little ditty about freedom is off the mark, way off the mark.
peter porker also said, "I believe Muslims hate Americans because they're Muslims. Islam is NOT a religion of peace. They are required to make the entire world submit to Islam according to the Koran. Ergo, if Islam gets its way, we get Dhimmitude."
Oh and by the way, the assumption here is that doctrine *dictates* belief, which it doesn't. Bill Vallicella has a nice refutation of that idea.
"Apparently not an unprovoked attack on 3,000 innocent civilians...."
Theres a world of difference between "unjustified" and "unprovoked."
"Yes. Al Qaeda comes to mind."
How is "Al Qaeda" a war?
"Since you ask for specifics, you can hvae the specifics. The legal definition of murder is: "the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way), and with no legal excuse or authority." As such, states can never murder; only individuals can commit murder, and then only if there is no legal authority commanding them to do so.
Therefore, if an unjust war occurs between states then no, murder cannot occur; however, there can still be unjustified homicide that occurs.
But since this is not the policy of what we do in Iraq, and since those who have broken the law are tried and convicted, this doesn't apply here anyway. Furthermore, if you are claiming that the US is actaully murdering people, you have to prove that charge."
Fine, I'll go along with your definition. The U.S military has many "unjustified homicides" under its belt because it has killed tens of thousands of innocent people. It's really that simple.
"Of course the onus is on proving what constitutes the battlefield in the first place."
And of course if we claim that the battlefield is anywhere because "terrorists" can be hiding anywhere, then we might give license to kill anywhere, no?
Your ****'d portions don't make a difference either.
You said: --- The *point* of the quotes is seeing your enemy through **their** eyes, not your own. ---
That's why I've read the Koran.
I don't care if Muslims don't like American policies. I do care that their stated goal is the destruction of Israel, the United States, and Western society. I do care that Muslims believe in Dhimmitude. These things are important, and they won't go away just because you'd rather make America into the bad guy.
America didn't create Islam. But if America can eradicate it, the world will be better off.
You said: --- Oh and by the way, the assumption here is that doctrine *dictates* belief, which it doesn't. ... errr the above should read 'doctrine doesn't necessarily dictate action'. ---
You're even dumber than I thought you were if you believe that. But I'm glad to see you acknowledge here (whether you realize it or not) that Islamic doctrine IS to put the whole world under Islam.
If you want to live that way, move to Mecca. But don't expect me to stand by and say, "Just because they believe it doesn't mean they'll DO it."
Onelasttime said: --- So Pike, you believe that recent military actions have prevented terrorist attacks. ---
So Onelasttimeisneverenough, you believe that dead terrorists can still commit acts of terrorism.
You said: --- Theres a world of difference between "unjustified" and "unprovoked." ---
Yeah, they're spelled differently.
Here's an idea. How about you provide an argument. Instead of saying, "There's a difference" how about you SHOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS. Otherwise, you're just making a distinction without a difference, which is stupid.
You said: --- Fine, I'll go along with your definition. The U.S military has many "unjustified homicides" under its belt because it has killed tens of thousands of innocent people. ---
An assertion without an argument.
Killing innocent people is only wrong if it is done without proper justification. Anyone who has studied ethics knows this. The "unjustified" portion of "unjustified homicide" is the key there.
You said: --- And of course if we claim that the battlefield is anywhere because "terrorists" can be hiding anywhere, then we might give license to kill anywhere, no? ---
What is this, argument by question mark?
I don't believe you? Therefore you're wrong? Hey, this tactic works?
"So Onelasttimeisneverenough, you believe that dead terrorists can still commit acts of terrorism."
You have to take both the death rate and the birth rate into account.
And resistance and insurgence forced aren't necessarily "terrorists." Even if you thought they were, you'd have to acknowledge that they were activated by U.S Forces in the first place.
"Yeah, they're spelled differently.
Here's an idea. How about you provide an argument. Instead of saying, "There's a difference" how about you SHOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS. Otherwise, you're just making a distinction without a difference, which is stupid."
An angry wife of an unfaithful spouse is not unjustified in killing her husband. She's certainly provoked however.
"What is this, argument by question mark?
I don't believe you? Therefore you're wrong? Hey, this tactic works?"
"How is Al Qaeda a war, you say? Are they not waging a war on the infidel? You're not doing your side any good by making such brainless statements."
So a non-state disorganized movement (which is more correctly what Al Qaeda is) starts using scare tactics, and this justified the US military romping all around the world?
As if you had a case to rest, Anonymous. You haven't presented anything.
Rest away.
Onelasttime said: --- You have to take both the death rate and the birth rate into account. ---
I believe I did. I said dead terrorists cannot commit terrorist acts.
Onelasttime said: --- An angry wife of an unfaithful spouse is not unjustified in killing her husband. She's certainly provoked however. ---
So? How does this apply to Iraq?
Are you saying that the Arabs are unjustified in attacking us, yet provoked?
If so, then why are we wrong to respond to an unjust attack? If I provoke you to violence it doesn't change your culpability, and it doesn't mean I cannot defend myself against you.
Onelasttime said: --- So a non-state disorganized movement (which is more correctly what Al Qaeda is) starts using scare tactics, and this justified the US military romping all around the world? ---
A) Al Qaeda is supported by states.
B) Killing people isn't a "scare tactic" and your saying so proves you're a complete buffoon.
C) The US military is not "romping all around the world." It is targeting terrorist cells and their locations.
But all this begs the question, Onelasttime. What would YOU have done to respond to 9/11?
Wait, I already know. You'd have been on your knees saying, "Bring on the Dhimmitude! We're so sorry we provoked you into kill innocent people! It's our fault! WE DESERVE TO DIE!"
"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse." ---John Stuart Mill
Ron Paul baby!
ReplyDeleteHe PWNS Huckabee on just about every issue.
He's the ultimate Pro-Life Small-Government candidate.
Unless, of course, you're a pro-torture war mongering nutjob.
www.ronpaul2008.com
Always nice to see the contributions of the Whackos For Ron Paul.
ReplyDeleteOh well.
Vote for Ron Paul! He'll abolish the IRS just in time for Dhimmitude!
Great point Pike!
ReplyDeleteWe are in such real danger of Dhimmitude here in the US.
I'm glad we have great leaders like Bush/Huckabee that can continue the bloodshed abroad so we don't get taken over by those evil Moooslims.
Great point Anonymous!
ReplyDeleteThose Arabs would love us if we just left them alone.
It's not like they ever attacked us before we invaded Iraq. Islam is the religion of peace. It is great and wonderful and as long as you agree you'll be perfectly fine!
Seriously though, I wonder how it's possible for someone to say we are in no danger of Dhimmitude in the US right now and therefore we ought to be anti-war when the only reason there is no danger of Dhimmitude in the US right now is because we have soldiers with M-203s saying, "Allahu Akhbar THIS" over in Iraq.
ReplyDeletePeter, all sarcasm aside, you REALLY think the US is in danger of becoming "Taliban-West" if we don't continue our "war" in Iraq and in the region?
ReplyDeleteThe 2000+ dead in 9/11 are worth what is happening to people over there, both US and non-US?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWith enough people like you over here, yes we are in grave danger of Dhimmitude. The only reason we currently are safe is because you are a whacko minority view.
As to you statement:
---
The 2000+ dead in 9/11 are worth what is happening to people over there, both US and non-US?
---
This is completely stupid. It's not a question of "worth" at all. It'd be like me saying, "Were the victims of Bundy worth Bundy's execution?" Simply absurd! That Bundy created victims is the reason he was executed and it has nothing to do with "worth" at all--it's justice.
In the same way, the reason that we are at war with Muslim terrorists is because they attacked us. Justice demands we respond by taking them out. The only other viable response is to bend over and grab your ankles and accept Dhimmitude.
We know which side you're on. Thank God your side is a lonely side. My side is keeping them at bay.
And you're welcome.
Thanks for your service in keeping our country safe Pike.
ReplyDeleteBlind leading the blind....
sigh
By the way, I must also ask...
ReplyDeleteDo the terrorists want to attack America?
The answer to this question is obviously "Yes."
Why, then, don't they?
What is your answer to that, Anonymouse? If the terrorists want to attack us again, and they would do so if they could, what is it that keeps them from doing so?
I think you'll find the answer isn't going to be "Because they'll eventually leave Iraq."
Thank you for your service to Jihadistan Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteUseful idiot...
Allahu Akbar!
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete"He's the ultimate Pro-Life Small-Government candidate."
How would Ron Paul's social conservatism translate into presidential policy? Does he believe in a nation-wide law to ban abortion, or would he leave that up to the discretion of the individual states, so that some states are free to murder babies with impunity?
Or does he even think this should be legislated at any level? After all, he ran as the presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party several years ago, and that Party takes a hands-off approach to abortion.
How about immigration? Does he believe in a national policy on immigration? Or would each state have its own foreign policy on immigration? 50 foreign policies on immigration.
I don't know Peter, Dhimmitude sounds like a bit of a stretch?
ReplyDeleteCMA
Steve, when did the federal government rightfully gain the authority to regulate abortion?
ReplyDeleteRon Paul sees the immigration issue as one of the few issues the federal government has to regulate, and is pretty strongly anti-immigration, and has advocated repeal of birthright citizenship.
Never mind that Huckabee's record as a conservative is quite shaky.
Pike was the 2003 invasion of Iraq our first bout of intervention in the middle east? If you believe that a Ron Paul presidency would result in dhimmitude, who's the crazy one?
And is the murder of thousands of innocent people justice?
It's only a bit of a stretch because folks like Anonymous are few.
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting for Anonymous to tell us why the terrorists haven't attacked us again if it's not because our military is killing the terrorists. Anonymous is taking the benefits provided by our military (protection from Islam's Dhimmitude) and using them to undermine the military.
In other words, if the military wasn't doing it's job Anonymous couldn't claim America was currently in no danger of Dhmmitude. It's because the military is doing its job that Anonymous can claim the military isn't needed because there is no threat.
But pulling a blanket over your head doesn't keep intruders out.
Onelasttime said:
ReplyDelete---
Pike was the 2003 invasion of Iraq our first bout of intervention in the middle east?
---
Do we live today with today's reality, or do we live in 1807?
Onelasttime said:
---
If you believe that a Ron Paul presidency would result in dhimmitude, who's the crazy one?
---
That question is predicated on a false dilimma. Secondly, my comments were in response to being accused of being "a pro-torture war mongering nutjob" so I couldn't care less if you can't understand the reason for te response.
Keep your head in the sand.
Onemoreidiotictime said:
---
And is the murder of thousands of innocent people justice?
---
War isn't murder.
ONELASTTIME SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve, when did the federal government rightfully gain the authority to regulate abortion?"
So you're admitting that his prolife views wouldn't translate into a national policy. In that case, how are his personal views on abortion (or any other social issue) politically relevant?
As to your question, one doesn't need a special right to do what is right. One only needs a special right to do what is ordinarily wrong.
it's good to see the Whacko, conspiracy theorist warmongers are still up to no good.
ReplyDeletethe more uninformed nonsense that comes out of peter or steve's mouth, the more doomed i think this country really is.
peter said, "Seriously though, I wonder how it's possible for someone to say we are in no danger of Dhimmitude in the US right now and therefore we ought to be anti-war when the only reason there is no danger of Dhimmitude in the US right now is because we have soldiers with M-203s saying, "Allahu Akhbar THIS" over in Iraq."
i think RP recognizes there is a danger but that danger primarily results from our foreign policy. By the way, it's not necessarily an 'anti-war' position nor is it isolationism. It's an anti-"piss everyone off, blow them up in case there's a possibility they may hurt you" position.
"So you're admitting that his prolife views wouldn't translate into a national policy. In that case, how are his personal views on abortion (or any other social issue) politically relevant?"
ReplyDeleteMany crimes (excepting things like treason and high crimes) would notbe legislated at the federal level. Those decisions are left to the local level.
However, he did write the Sanctity of Life bill that would have overturned Roe vs Wade and says that life begins at conception, but the Republican led congress (or the President, who pressures Congress all the time) did not seem to want to put their money where their mouth was.
Oh yeah, but Huckster made Arkansans get their parents permission! classic...
ONELASTTIME SAID:
ReplyDelete“Steve, when did the federal government rightfully gain the authority to regulate abortion?”
To begin with, senators and Congressmen are elected representatives and national officials. So why wouldn’t that give them to right?
In addition, it is, from a Biblical standpoint, the duty of government to enforce the moral law. How you divvy up the process is secondary.
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete---
i think RP recognizes there is a danger but that danger primarily results from our foreign policy.
---
And this is exactly why RP cannot become president. He's completely disconnected from reality on this issue, just like you are.
"Do we live today with today's reality, or do we live in 1807?"
ReplyDeleteThe reality that we live in is not divorced from the past. We live with its effects.
"War isn't murder."
This brings up about a million questions. Like:
What does it take for something to be called war?
Is there such thing as unjust war? If so would the killing involved be considered murder, or is it meaningfully different in anyway?
Does war give a license for killing when it is not on the battlefield?
The Paulites are nuts!
ReplyDeleteThey think that the Jews are a greater threat than the Jihadists. Just check this out:
http://butler-harris.org/archives/295
yeah uh huh peter...
ReplyDeletethe pentagon defense report from 11/2004 agrees (which confirms Michael Scheurer's position), many in the CIA agree, but believe what you will...
"As to your question, one doesn't need a special right to do what is right. One only needs a special right to do what is ordinarily wrong."
ReplyDeleteWould this mean that people who kill abortion doctors/ mothers are justified?
Anonymous said:
ReplyDeleteMany crimes (excepting things like treason and high crimes) would notbe legislated at the federal level. Those decisions are left to the local level.
******************************************
That's an assertion, not an argument. Where's your supporting argument?
So you're saying, for example, that it would be wrong to have a national law that bans child prostitution or pedophilia or child pornography. Instead, each state should have the right to legalize child prostitution or pedophilia or child pornography—free of Federal interference. Is that your position?
onelasttime said...
ReplyDelete"As to your question, one doesn't need a special right to do what is right. One only needs a special right to do what is ordinarily wrong."
Would this mean that people who kill abortion doctors/ mothers are justified?
*******************************
It would mean, for example, that I don't ordinarily have the right to shoot someone, but if he breaks into my home in the dark of night, I have the right to shoot him.
I wasn't intending to make an argument, I was explicating how I understood RPs position.
ReplyDeleteBut if the strict constructionist view is right (something like the compact theory as defended by Abel Upshur or federalism as opposed to nationalism), then it would seem to be wrong to take an oath to uphold the constitution and then legislate *everything* at the federal level, as though the constitution didn't exist.
So I wouldn't necessarily say that it's wrong, but that it's unconstitutional. Ultimately, I think I agree with the Anti-Federalists (I think it was Centinel) who argued that one cannot have a republic over such a vast land and with such a large population - it will end in tyranny. Freedom seems to be best preserved at the local level.
Onelasttime said:
ReplyDelete---
The reality that we live in is not divorced from the past. We live with its effects.
---
But we can't change the past. We can, however, change the future (from our own limited perspective; obviously the future is set in God's eye already, but He uses us today in the hear and now as means towards His ends). And even if I bought your bogus argument hook, line, and sinker and said, "Yeah, the Arabs are ticked at us because of something that happened 50 years ago" the fact of the matter remains that that knowledge is irrelevant in dealing with them today. Nor does it change the fact that our troops in Iraq are killing terrorists by the score, and each dead terrorist is one less terrorist that can harm an American over here.
Again, no one has answered my question. We all know that the terrorists would love nothing more than to attack America again...so why haven't they done so? Surely the terrorists are not over in Iraq waiting for Ron Paul to become elected so they can put down their arms.
And surely you can't be stupid enough to think that if we left Iraq today the terrorists wouldn't be moving in droves to attack us in America again.
Onelasttime said:
---
What does it take for something to be called war?
---
Apparently not an unprovoked attack on 3,000 innocent civilians....
Onelasttime said:
---
Is there such thing as unjust war?
---
Yes. Al Qaeda comes to mind.
Onelasttime said:
---
If so would the killing involved be considered murder, or is it meaningfully different in anyway?
---
Since you ask for specifics, you can hvae the specifics. The legal definition of murder is: "the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way), and with no legal excuse or authority." As such, states can never murder; only individuals can commit murder, and then only if there is no legal authority commanding them to do so.
Therefore, if an unjust war occurs between states then no, murder cannot occur; however, there can still be unjustified homicide that occurs.
But since this is not the policy of what we do in Iraq, and since those who have broken the law are tried and convicted, this doesn't apply here anyway. Furthermore, if you are claiming that the US is actaully murdering people, you have to prove that charge.
Onelasttime said:
---
Does war give a license for killing when it is not on the battlefield?
---
Of course the onus is on proving what constitutes the battlefield in the first place.
I don't know what has happened with Bauer, but he seems to have become more manipulator than leader. He distorts/misrepresents Huckabee's position at least three times in this short article.
ReplyDeleteI think we all need to be praying for Bauer, because I think he may be having some spiritual problems.
Kevin said:
ReplyDelete---
I don't know what has happened with Bauer, but he seems to have become more manipulator than leader. He distorts/misrepresents Huckabee's position at least three times in this short article.
---
If so then surely you could point them out, yes?
After all, you said:
---
I think we all need to be praying for Bauer, because I think he may be having some spiritual problems.
---
And people who make unsubstantiated claims about other's spiritual problems may be having some spiritual problems too...
peter said, "And even if I bought your bogus argument hook, line, and sinker and said, "Yeah, the Arabs are ticked at us because of something that happened 50 years ago" the fact of the matter remains that that knowledge is irrelevant in dealing with them today."
ReplyDeleteUmm who's argument is that? it's not just 50 years ago but *for the past 50 years*.
peter said, "Nor does it change the fact that our troops in Iraq are killing terrorists by the score, and each dead terrorist is one less terrorist that can harm an American over here."
That doesn't matter due to:
1. There's a difference between insurgents and terrorists.
2. The longer bin Laden lives and is proven correct by our policies, the more credibility he has in the eyes of all Muslims. This has brought Muslims together under one banner - destroying the occupiers.
3. If you want to continue this policy, you are going to have to kill a whole lot more people, which then will make it very unpopular.
4. Bin Laden and crew have said their goal is to destroy our center of gravity, which is our economy. The longer the wars last, the better for bin Laden. The radicalized Muslims didn't defeat the Soviets overnight. In the end, our foreign policy wins, even if through the collapse of the economy.
5. NO foreign invader has successfully occupied Afghanistan in the past 300 or so years. At the least we could have learned from and implement strategies from our experience in aiding bin Laden against the Soviets.
peter said, "Again, no one has answered my question. We all know that the terrorists would love nothing more than to attack America again...so why haven't they done so? Surely the terrorists are not over in Iraq waiting for Ron Paul to become elected so they can put down their arms."
They have attacked America and they continue to do so (in the Mid-east). It was the prayer of the #2al Qaeda leader that the U.S. would not leave until at least 200,000 Americans were killed.
A reading list on foreign policy for Peter:
1. The 9/11 Commission Report
2. Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson
3. Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer (the former Chief of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit, Alec Station)
4. Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Professor Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago
5. Perfect Soldiers by Terry McDermott
6. The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright
7. A Pretext for War by James Bamford
8. Terror Incorporated or Insurgent Iraq by Loretta Napoleoni
9. 1000 Years for Revenge by Peter Lance
10. The Far Enemy by Fawaz A. Gerges Holy War, Inc. by Peter Bergen
11. Ghost Wars by Steve Coll
12. Why the Rest Hates the West: Understanding the Roots of Global Rage by Meic Pearse
13. Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force - U.S. Department of Defense - 11.2004.
Quotes from 13.
1 "Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather **they hate our policies**. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.'
2. "Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions
appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination."
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete---
There's a difference between insurgents and terrorists.
---
Of course there is. The first word is used by those who wish to deny reality, whereas the second word is used descriptively.
Anonywuss continued:
---
The longer bin Laden lives and is proven correct by our policies, the more credibility he has in the eyes of all Muslims. This has brought Muslims together under one banner - destroying the occupiers.
---
It would help if you lived in the real world. If the Muslims are all together, why is it that most of the deaths are sectarian between Shiites and Sunni right now?
Oh drat, another ugly fact ruining your delusion.
You said:
---
If you want to continue this policy, you are going to have to kill a whole lot more people, which then will make it very unpopular.
---
Popularity isn't the issue. But I wonder just how popular it'll be when Muslims are blowing themselves up daily in American cities. Have you thought that more Americans will die if we listen to you? Why is it only the Muslim dead who concern you?
You said:
---
Bin Laden and crew have said their goal is to destroy our center of gravity, which is our economy. The longer the wars last, the better for bin Laden. The radicalized Muslims didn't defeat the Soviets overnight. In the end, our foreign policy wins, even if through the collapse of the economy.
---
Oh yeah, the ol' "You'll be stuck in soup lines" argument. Very persuasive given...um, there are no soup lines outside.
Do you have anything that addresses reality?
You said:
---
NO foreign invader has successfully occupied Afghanistan in the past 300 or so years.\
---
No foreign invader has successfully occupied England in the past 300 or so years either.
OOOH! THAT MUST MEAN SOMETHING!!!
You said:
---
At the least we could have learned from and implement strategies from our experience in aiding bin Laden against the Soviets.
---
Lessee... We're over there and doing a whole lot better than the Soviets did.
How is that not learning from the past?
When the Afghans start actually, you know, like winning battles and stuff, THEN I'll start to worry about your dumb ideas.
You said:
---
They have attacked America and they continue to do so (in the Mid-east). It was the prayer of the #2al Qaeda leader that the U.S. would not leave until at least 200,000 Americans were killed.
---
They have attacked America? But I thought they wouldn't do that...
And since when is the Middle East part of America? Or do you mean all the vicious Muslim hijackings going on in Cleveland?
Perhaps you just mean Keith Ellison?
You said:
---
A reading list on foreign policy for Peter
---
Thanks. I've read some of those already, and I can put the others at the end of my fantasy list.
By the way, as to the 200,000 US dead target...
ReplyDeleteIt's been 6 years and 1 month since we entered Afghanistan. Lumping in the casualties from Iraq too, we've got 3,852 according to one wacko lib site I looked at.
That's about 634 per year.
So after 315 years, when we finally have 200,000 dead in the War on Terror, Bin Laden WILL HAVE WON!!!
We must flee now.
Amazing peter. From this and your other rants, you give absolutely no indication that you've read anything on the list i provided.
ReplyDeleteYour 'shoot from the hip, I don't know what on God's green earth I'm talking about' response pretty much amounts to addressing subordinate issues rather than the primary point (i.e., addressing popularity rather than the fact that we're not fighting the war as a war, not to mention your *laughable* comments on the economy).
Nevertheless, continue with your whacko conspiratorial beliefs that everyone is out to get us no matter the surrounding context and that we must kill kill kill.
Anonywuss said:
ReplyDelete---
From this and your other rants, you give absolutely no indication that you've read anything on the list i provided.
---
Given that YOU'VE NEVER PRESENTED AN ARGUMENT and I can only respond to your bare assertions, you get what you deserve.
By the way, any reader who isn't already brainwashed into your camp can look through the above and see that I've responded to each of your claims and raised counter points that have been completely ignored the entire time.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBernarde said, "Steve and others have posted statements of purpose from Islamic documents claiming their intentions. You're a fool to think that by simply withdrawing we'll cause their anger towards us to subside.
ReplyDeleteThat's why you're out of touch with reality."
Many of those same documents have statements about their primary motivations as well. Odd that you would accept *their* intentions without listening to *their* motivations.
Peter,
Any reader who has read those books listed would know that, based on your idiotic response, you are lying about reading any of them.
Bernabe also said, "Anonymous, you're being idiotic. Peter never mentioned a global conspiracy ("everyone is out to get us") but an Islamic threat to bring the world under Sharia law."
ReplyDeleteWhat's funny is that this is not an *offensive* jihad due to the fact that no caliphate exists. Yeah but you knew that. I'm sure Peter does since he's read 'some of those books' (note the sarcasm of the last two sentences).
Bernabe said, "You're a fool to think that by simply withdrawing we'll cause their anger towards us to subside."
Did I say this? Ummm no. Nevertheless, you're a fool for thinking you can grab a dog by the ears without pissing it off.
Anonywuss said:
ReplyDelete---
Any reader who has read those books listed would know that, based on your idiotic response, you are lying about reading any of them.
---
Any reader who has read your lack of supporting documentation would know that, based on your idiotic response, you are lying about my not having read any of them.
You can make all the charges you want, bub, but you've proven nothing. This is no surprise, given your faulty conclusions about everything else you don't have the ability to reason at all.
Let me make it simple for you: present an argument or shut up.
To help you out: arguments are not bare assertions. When you make an assertion and present evidence for it, THEN you'll have presented an argument.
So present your evidence. Lay your cards on the table. Else go home to mamma.
peter porker (i can play on names also), you can start with the quotes that you left out of your "reasoned" response. it's quite simple to access the report.
ReplyDeleteThe quotes have nothing to do with what I said, Anonywuss.
ReplyDeleteWhere have I said Muslims hate Americans because of our freedom?
I haven't. In fact, I believe Muslims hate Americans because they're Muslims. Islam is NOT a religion of peace. They are required to make the entire world submit to Islam according to the Koran. Ergo, if Islam gets its way, we get Dhimmitude.
Therefore, your first quote is pointless.
When have I said that the reason we're in Afghanistan is to set up a democracy?
I haven't. We're in Afghanistan (and Iraq) to kill terrorists so they don't kill us. While setting up a democracy there may help us do that, that's not the point of why we are there. If the democracy doesn't work, we can jettison it. And I don't care if Muslims aren't pleased by that. I'm not pleased by Muslim behavior. Why is it that you're only concerned about what THEY are pleased with?
Therefore, your second quote is pointless.
Now how about you deal with what I did say instead of sticking your head...well, let's just say "in the sand"?
umm earth to peter porker? did you not see the portion of the quotes that I "**"d? You are missing the trees from the forrest. This is precisely why I don't take what you have to say seriously when it comes to foreign policy issues. The *point* of the quotes is seeing your enemy through **their** eyes, not your own. Your little ditty about freedom is off the mark, way off the mark.
ReplyDeletemental constipation is an amazing phenomenon.
peter porker also said, "I believe Muslims hate Americans because they're Muslims. Islam is NOT a religion of peace. They are required to make the entire world submit to Islam according to the Koran. Ergo, if Islam gets its way, we get Dhimmitude."
ReplyDeleteOh and by the way, the assumption here is that doctrine *dictates* belief, which it doesn't. Bill Vallicella has a nice refutation of that idea.
Ciao
errr the above should read 'doctrine doesn't necessarily dictate action'.
ReplyDeleteSo Pike, you believe that recent military actions have prevented terrorist attacks.
ReplyDelete"Apparently not an unprovoked attack on 3,000 innocent civilians...."
ReplyDeleteTheres a world of difference between "unjustified" and "unprovoked."
"Yes. Al Qaeda comes to mind."
How is "Al Qaeda" a war?
"Since you ask for specifics, you can hvae the specifics. The legal definition of murder is: "the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way), and with no legal excuse or authority." As such, states can never murder; only individuals can commit murder, and then only if there is no legal authority commanding them to do so.
Therefore, if an unjust war occurs between states then no, murder cannot occur; however, there can still be unjustified homicide that occurs.
But since this is not the policy of what we do in Iraq, and since those who have broken the law are tried and convicted, this doesn't apply here anyway. Furthermore, if you are claiming that the US is actaully murdering people, you have to prove that charge."
Fine, I'll go along with your definition. The U.S military has many "unjustified homicides" under its belt because it has killed tens of thousands of innocent people. It's really that simple.
"Of course the onus is on proving what constitutes the battlefield in the first place."
And of course if we claim that the battlefield is anywhere because "terrorists" can be hiding anywhere, then we might give license to kill anywhere, no?
Earth to Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYour ****'d portions don't make a difference either.
You said:
---
The *point* of the quotes is seeing your enemy through **their** eyes, not your own.
---
That's why I've read the Koran.
I don't care if Muslims don't like American policies. I do care that their stated goal is the destruction of Israel, the United States, and Western society. I do care that Muslims believe in Dhimmitude. These things are important, and they won't go away just because you'd rather make America into the bad guy.
America didn't create Islam. But if America can eradicate it, the world will be better off.
You said:
---
Oh and by the way, the assumption here is that doctrine *dictates* belief, which it doesn't. ... errr the above should read 'doctrine doesn't necessarily dictate action'.
---
You're even dumber than I thought you were if you believe that. But I'm glad to see you acknowledge here (whether you realize it or not) that Islamic doctrine IS to put the whole world under Islam.
If you want to live that way, move to Mecca. But don't expect me to stand by and say, "Just because they believe it doesn't mean they'll DO it."
Onelasttime said:
---
So Pike, you believe that recent military actions have prevented terrorist attacks.
---
So Onelasttimeisneverenough, you believe that dead terrorists can still commit acts of terrorism.
You said:
---
Theres a world of difference between "unjustified" and "unprovoked."
---
Yeah, they're spelled differently.
Here's an idea. How about you provide an argument. Instead of saying, "There's a difference" how about you SHOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS. Otherwise, you're just making a distinction without a difference, which is stupid.
You said:
---
Fine, I'll go along with your definition. The U.S military has many "unjustified homicides" under its belt because it has killed tens of thousands of innocent people.
---
An assertion without an argument.
Killing innocent people is only wrong if it is done without proper justification. Anyone who has studied ethics knows this. The "unjustified" portion of "unjustified homicide" is the key there.
You said:
---
And of course if we claim that the battlefield is anywhere because "terrorists" can be hiding anywhere, then we might give license to kill anywhere, no?
---
What is this, argument by question mark?
I don't believe you? Therefore you're wrong? Hey, this tactic works?
How is Al Qaeda a war, you say?
ReplyDeleteAre they not waging a war on the infidel?
You're not doing your side any good by making such brainless statements.
peter porker said, "I don't care if Muslims don't like American policies."
ReplyDeleteI rest my case.... Thank you Peter.
"So Onelasttimeisneverenough, you believe that dead terrorists can still commit acts of terrorism."
ReplyDeleteYou have to take both the death rate and the birth rate into account.
And resistance and insurgence forced aren't necessarily "terrorists." Even if you thought they were, you'd have to acknowledge that they were activated by U.S Forces in the first place.
"Yeah, they're spelled differently.
Here's an idea. How about you provide an argument. Instead of saying, "There's a difference" how about you SHOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS. Otherwise, you're just making a distinction without a difference, which is stupid."
An angry wife of an unfaithful spouse is not unjustified in killing her husband. She's certainly provoked however.
"What is this, argument by question mark?
I don't believe you? Therefore you're wrong? Hey, this tactic works?"
-_-
"How is Al Qaeda a war, you say?
ReplyDeleteAre they not waging a war on the infidel?
You're not doing your side any good by making such brainless statements."
So a non-state disorganized movement (which is more correctly what Al Qaeda is) starts using scare tactics, and this justified the US military romping all around the world?
As if you had a case to rest, Anonymous. You haven't presented anything.
ReplyDeleteRest away.
Onelasttime said:
---
You have to take both the death rate and the birth rate into account.
---
I believe I did. I said dead terrorists cannot commit terrorist acts.
Onelasttime said:
---
An angry wife of an unfaithful spouse is not unjustified in killing her husband. She's certainly provoked however.
---
So? How does this apply to Iraq?
Are you saying that the Arabs are unjustified in attacking us, yet provoked?
If so, then why are we wrong to respond to an unjust attack? If I provoke you to violence it doesn't change your culpability, and it doesn't mean I cannot defend myself against you.
Onelasttime said:
---
So a non-state disorganized movement (which is more correctly what Al Qaeda is) starts using scare tactics, and this justified the US military romping all around the world?
---
A) Al Qaeda is supported by states.
B) Killing people isn't a "scare tactic" and your saying so proves you're a complete buffoon.
C) The US military is not "romping all around the world." It is targeting terrorist cells and their locations.
But all this begs the question, Onelasttime. What would YOU have done to respond to 9/11?
Wait, I already know. You'd have been on your knees saying, "Bring on the Dhimmitude! We're so sorry we provoked you into kill innocent people! It's our fault! WE DESERVE TO DIE!"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse." ---John Stuart Mill
ReplyDelete