Marine Killings Probe Wrapping Up

[Rhino]

Pentagon Wrapping Up Marine Killings Probe

Friday, May 26, 2006

WASHINGTON — A Pentagon spokesman said Friday that he believes the military's investigation is winding down into allegations that Marines committed unprovoked killings of as many as two dozen Iraqi civilians.

Eric Ruff, the Pentagon press secretary, told reporters that he could not comment on reports that the investigation is expected to confirm the allegations against the Marines and that criminal charges, including murder, are possible.

Ruff also would not characterize the extent of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's concern about the matter, which if confirmed could be the gravest case of criminal misconduct by U.S. troops during three years of combat in Iraq. Ruff said Rumsfeld is being kept apprised of the investigations.

Ruff said he did not expect any announcements in the next few days. He referred questions about the investigation to the Marine Corps, which has declined to comment beyond an initial announcement that a criminal investigation is under way.

The Los Angeles Times reported on Friday that investigators have concluded that the Marines killed unarmed civilians, including women and children, at Haditha last November, and that they tried to cover it up..........http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197168,00.html

[Dowple]

On Thursday, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Michael W. Hagee (http://javascript<b></b>:siteSearch('Michael W. Hagee');) flew to Iraq to warn his troops against allowing the unrelenting insurgent violence to leave them callous to human suffering and the loss of life.
"We do not employ force just for the sake of employing force. We use lethal force only when justified, proportional and, most importantly, lawful," Hagee wrote in a statement issued by his office. Aides said it was the basis of remarks he intended to make to Marines in Iraq this week.
The military initially described the Haditha encounter as an ambush during a joint U.S.-Iraqi patrol that involved a roadside bombing in which a Marine died, followed by a firefight. However, residents of the neighborhood maintained that only U.S. forces were shooting after the explosion.


And this is why I oppose this "war" that really isn't a war but instead social work in disguise. If the marines were ambushed, they should have leveled the entire nighborhood. I don't give a fig about Iraqis, and I don't care if all of them end up living in stone rubble, eating rats and cockroaches. And the sooner they realize that such a fate awaits them if they help or even give tacit support to our enemies, the sooner they'll start giving up the enemy. These people clearly have not suffered enough. I'd give these marines a medal. And I'd pass out videos of Abu Ghraib as a model for behavior instead of a crime. To hell with all the missionaries running this war from Washington.

[DesertFox]

If the marines were ambushed, they should have leveled the entire nighborhood.Nope.

[Un Con Troll Able]

And this is why I oppose this "war" that really isn't a war but instead social work in disguise. If the marines were ambushed, they should have leveled the entire nighborhood. I don't give a fig about Iraqis, and I don't care if all of them end up living in stone rubble, eating rats and cockroaches. And the sooner they realize that such a fate awaits them if they help or even give tacit support to our enemies, the sooner they'll start giving up the enemy. These people clearly have not suffered enough. I'd give these marines a medal. And I'd pass out videos of Abu Ghraib as a model for behavior instead of a crime. To hell with all the missionaries running this war from Washington.

Word for word...amen.

You don't liberate aggressor nations. You conquer them and impose your will. You don't let them sit at the head of the damn table without having earned it.

You draw fire from a building -- then you turn the structure into rubble without worrying about evacuating it first. You locate a hotbed for insurgency -- then you level the place, even if that place is a city.

As to the story...I just read another article on this subject. This looks very, very serious -- and that there may have been many, many more victims than were originally reported.

[Rhino]

In other words, we should be more like Saddam Hussein.

I pass.

[DesertFox]

I'm glad you guys aren't in positions of authority.

[Un Con Troll Able]

And it's unfortunate--especially for our troops--that people like you are in authority.

[Nutrider99]

And this is why I oppose this "war" that really isn't a war but instead social work in disguise.
There are two sides to the war on terrorism. You must choose one of them. Either you support the use of force to route out and destroy the terrorists, or you support the killing of innocents to further your cause. In this case, you sound like you side with the Islamists.

If the marines were ambushed, they should have leveled the entire nighborhood.
That's what the terrorists want. The terrorists, not the Iraqi people are the enemy. Freedom and democracy in Iraq is the solution.

[Un Con Troll Able]

In other words, we should be more like Saddam Hussein.

I pass.


No, not Saddam -- a little more like George Patton.

[Rink]

To Dowple and Un Con Troll Able,

You both are so hot to level the entire neighborhoods of these people we were supposed to free from tyranny.

I dont suppose either of you two are old enough to remember this name?

My Lai?

Ya might wanna look it up k?

Thanks.

[DesertFox]

They seem to be the sort who can't tell one Iraqi from another, so just kill 'em all to be sure. Hell, if that's all it takes, we can win the whole planet in a year or so.

:rolleyes:

[Un Con Troll Able]

DesertFox,

You are absolutely right, I cannot tell one Iraqi from another. I am reminded of a scene from the movie Spartacus. In that scene, Spartacus, played very effectively by Kirk Douglas, is about to participate in his first gladiatorial battle -- pitted against this gigantic black fellow. Spartacus stares at his opponent and quietly says, "I'm Spartacus. What's your name?" The guy glares at him for a moment and says, "I don't want to know your name. You don't want to know my name. We have to go into that arena and I have to try to kill you. One of us is going to die today."

Hollywood, yes -- but eloquent in its simplicity, nonetheless. I think it beautifully summarizes the only mentality you can have to effectively wage war. Anything less is a detriment to military effectiveness and inevitably puts the lives of our soldiers unnecessarily at risk. War is supposed to be savage -- that way we will only employ it when we really mean it. You don't deliberately target civilians for the fun of it, but I don't shed any tears when they die as a natural consequence to a legitimate military action. We cannot allow our warfighting philosophy to become the conservative version of "What about the children!!!"

And our soldiers are somebody's children, too.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't give two sh*ts about Iraqi freedom. "Giving freedom" has become the conservative version of welfare -- attempting to give a gift that can't be given.

And please don't tell me this is about terrorism. I did that for a living during my military career -- intelligence analyst. I studied, analyzed, and briefed senior leadership on this stuff. Yes, Saddam had his fingers in a few pies. But I can promise you that the Assad's of Syria and the mullahs in Iran have far dirtier hands with respect to that particular exported industry. And I won't even bother mentioning North Korea.

This war -- as it is currently being waged -- is about political embarrassment; the humbling failure to locate stockpiles of WMDs. I supported this war for its initial goals -- but liberation was a very, very distant second reason for going in there. I stopped supporting this war when it became the primary reason; as a thoroughly transparent way of masking a gross political misjudgment.

Listen, man. I respect you, okay? And that will either mean something to you or it won't. You were career military, I was career military -- as was Rhino, and I imagine at least a few others. And we are simply going to have to disagree on the subject.

Oh, by the way, I apologize for my remark directed at you in my previous post. It was uncalled for.

I just hope we get our troops home as soon as possible -- ALL of them.



Rink --

And you might want to look up the lessons learned from World War II. To wit -- vaporize a couple of Japanese cities (killing more than 150,000 elderly, women, and children) and fire bomb their capital (killing almost just as many more), and what do you get? Answer: A completely pliable society that will submit to your will on every level without trying to kill your soldiers when they come ashore.

Mai Lai is simply a knee-jerk response to my post.

[Un Con Troll Able]

I understand why people will continue to support this war. Without it, Bush truly has nothing.

[MichaelS]

The problem as I see it is that you have U.S. Armed Forces that were never trained to function as police, security guards, and peacekeepers being asked to function in exactly those capacities. Then they are asked to perform those duties with anywhere from 33% to 25% of the numbers it would take to adequately perform the tasks.

Throw in that Post-occupation stabilization is a highly political process as opposed to the highly military process of the occupation itself, and you have a very frustrated fighting force.

[DesertFox]

They aren't functioning as police. They are indeed functioning as security guards and peace keepers -- roles that soldiers have performed since time immemorial. Every night you go to sleep during war, somebody pulls guard duty. Peace keeping simply means you do patrols, guard places, take bad guys prisoner, etc, which soldiers have also always done. These kinds of duties calm the populace and force the bad guys to work much harder to do their evil.

Police go after common criminals -- purse snatchers, rapists, robbers, et al -- and enforce the law.

[Suzie]

It seems some have "lost it", I am thankful I have a man who has not.


President Ronald Reagan's June 6, 1984 speech in front of the U.S. Ranger Monument in Normandy commemorating the Rangers' charge up Pointe du Hoc:
"Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet, you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put
aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief. It was loyalty and love.
"The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge-and pray to God we have not lost it-
that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.
"You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty."

[Riverboat]

And it's unfortunate--especially for our troops--that people like you are in authority.I'm just astounded at how ignorant your comments are. You're damned lucky you have people like DF (and WolfCounsel, etc.) in authority. If it were up to you, apparently, you'd put people like Calley in charge, shooting up innocent villagers. The Iraqis are NOT our enemy - Saddam Hussein, the Baathists, the owl-KKKayda and all the other nuts pouring in from Mideast countries are.

[Un Con Troll Able]

I'm just astounded at how ignorant your comments are. You're damned lucky you have people like DF (and WolfCounsel, etc.) in authority. If it were up to you, apparently, you'd put people like Calley in charge, shooting up innocent villagers. The Iraqis are NOT our enemy - Saddam Hussein, the Baathists, the owl-KKKayda and all the other nuts pouring in from Mideast countries are.


I never thought I would say what I am about to say to anyone on this board. No matter.

You are a complete idiot. And I mean that. You are the type of 'conservative' who simply doesn't have a clue -- and you never will.

I have given what I feel is a more-than-adequate articulation of my position on the subject of use of force and its application in the achievement of freedom. Instead of weighing its merits, you launch into a childish tirade indicative of willful blindess and seething arrogance.

I can't dumb it down anymore than I already have, and it is obvious that it will never be dumbed down enough for you to understand it.

You cannot fight wars based upon the concept of "Shoot this guy, but don't shoot that guy -- and hit that building, but don't that other one." And that is precisely the war we are attempting to wage. We are attempting a rebuilding of infrastructure while clearly significant military actions by the enemy endure. And we are attempting to befriend a people many of whom would be screaming "Death to America" right now if we had gone into Syria or Iran instead (more so with Syria than with Iran).

We wage wars against societies -- or at least that is how it is supposed to work. We waged war against the whole of Japan. We waged war against the whole of Germany. We didn't care how many peace lovers there were within their borders, and I dare say no American ever lost any sleep at that time over the number of children who perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- and not too many since (except for liberal apologists).

America has acquired a fast-food mentality to fighting wars -- do it quick and with a minimum of waste (casualties). But that is not what this situation is about. It is about the misappropriation of patriotism to support of war that, in my mind, the Iraqis are completely incapable of triumphing in (at least in terms of freedom and justice). Somebody will eventually triumph in Iraq, but I can promise it won't be anyone representing those concepts. And that is because we will eventually leave -- and the Syrians, Iranians, and many Islamic fundamentalist preachers all know it.

You cannot teach freedom. You cannot teach bravery. You cannot teach honor.

Look at Afghanistan for a moment. The powers that be there were going to murder a man simply for converting to Christianity. Yes, they backed down. But it shows you how barbaric their ethic remains.

Muslim societies are divided into two camps -- wolves and sheep. There ain't no middle ground. And to create that middle ground and eventually deal with the wolves is a journey a culture must make on its own. We are trying to accelerate that journey artificially. And it simply won't work. Victory in that country is not going to be a matter of training Iraqis. We thought that with Vietnam and we all know how that turned out.

Anyway, consider this my last word on the matter.

The future will tell.

And you don't need a crystal ball to predict it.

[Nutrider99]

War is supposed to be savage -- that way we will only employ it when we really mean it. You don't deliberately target civilians for the fun of it, but I don't shed any tears when they die as a natural consequence to a legitimate military action.
That of course applies when one is fighting the army of a nation with which you are at war. We are not. The people of Iraq are not our enemies. Our enemies are the thugs and murderers who say "God is great" while committing mas murder. Civilian casualties are avoided whenever possible by men of integrity.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't give two sh*ts about Iraqi freedom. "Giving freedom" has become the conservative version of welfare -- attempting to give a gift that can't be given.
Freedom is the natural condition of man, devoid of oppression. Remove the oppression and the freedom emerges. Freedom is endowed to man by his Creator. It is not given to anyone from anyone. A gift that can't be given? Tell that to Germany and Japan.

And please don't tell me this is about terrorism. I did that for a living during my military career -- intelligence analyst. I studied, analyzed, and briefed senior leadership on this stuff. Yes, Saddam had his fingers in a few pies. But I can promise you that the Assad's of Syria and the mullahs in Iran have far dirtier hands with respect to that particular exported industry. And I won't even bother mentioning North Korea.
If you were so well versed in the matter, please answer me this:

If a cease-fire is called in the middle of a battle, and that cease-fire is violated, what is the battlefield condition?

If you are engaged in a global war on terror and you need to take out a few hostile regimes in the process, do you start a new war with a new enemy or finish the war you have going on already?

If Saddam Hussein was in violation of UN resolutions, the 1991 cease-fire, and was actively seeking ways to weaponize ricin, actively seeking long range missiles, repeatedly firing on US aircraft, actively seeking nuclear warheads and actively funding terrorist, including giving sactuary to Abu Niudal and Abu Abas and funding the hijack training school at Salman Pak where at least 6 of the 9/11 hikackers trained, would than make him a threat to the US?

This war -- as it is currently being waged -- is about political embarrassment; the humbling failure to locate stockpiles of WMDs.
They were shipped out to Syria while Bush catered to the spineless libs and gave Hussein more time.

I supported this war for its initial goals -- but liberation was a very, very distant second reason for going in there.
The liberation of Iraq became official US policy in 1998. Establishing a democracy in Iraq was deemed critical to the war on terror in that it removed a barbor for terrorists and showed the Arab world that democracy and freedom were possible.

I stopped supporting this war when it became the primary reason; as a thoroughly transparent way of masking a gross political misjudgment.
I don't believe you in the least. I think you're just a stinking lib, and like all libs you don't give a damn about the country so long as you have political power.

You were career military, I was career military -- as was Rhino, and I imagine at least a few others. And we are simply going to have to disagree on the subject.
I find it very, very hard to believe that career military would call for the deaths of innocents. Frankly, I doubt you served.

I just hope we get our troops home as soon as possible -- ALL of them.
True peace lies only only on the other side of victory.

And you might want to look up the lessons learned from World War II. To wit -- vaporize a couple of Japanese cities (killing more than 150,000 elderly, women, and children) and fire bomb their capital (killing almost just as many more), and what do you get? Answer: A completely pliable society that will submit to your will on every level without trying to kill your soldiers when they come ashore.
Perhaps you might want to look at lessons learned from WWII. The people of both Japan and Germany were liberated from oppressive governments. These people became among our strongest allies, not because we firebombed them, not because we nuked them, but because we introduced personal freedoms and capitalism into a formerly oppressive feudal society.

Again, the people of Iraq are not our enemies. They never were. Islamofascists are our enemies. Terrorists are our enemies. Dead innocents only strengthen the propaganda of the terrorists / NY Times.

[Un Con Troll Able]

I admit I am tempted to respond to your post at length. But -- quite simply -- I weary with discussing this issue with people like you. You will not change your opinion and I will not change mine.

As for your doubting my military background...believe what you will.

As I said...we can't hide from the future. And then we shall see.

[Nutrider99]

You are a complete idiot. And I mean that. You are the type of 'conservative' who simply doesn't have a clue -- and you never will....

You cannot fight wars based upon the concept of "Shoot this guy, but don't shoot that guy -- and hit that building, but don't that other one." And that is precisely the war we are attempting to wage. We are attempting a rebuilding of infrastructure while clearly significant military actions by the enemy endure. And we are attempting to befriend a people many of whom would be screaming "Death to America" right now if we had gone into Syria or Iran instead (more so with Syria than with Iran).

We wage wars against societies -- or at least that is how it is supposed to work. We waged war against the whole of Japan. We waged war against the whole of Germany.
Hey, Screen Beret!

The war with Iraq ended a long time ago. Go buy a clue! We aren't fighting NATIONS, moron, we're fighting FRACTIONS. Our enemy does not wear uniforms. They do not have the sanction of any country. They do not respect borders. They do not adhere to any code of conduct. Yet, you say you SPECIALIZED in this stuff?

I have a friend who is a counter-terrorism specialist. It is my opinion that you are nothing but a damn liar! Nobody who knew anything about the subject would regurgitate the absolute stupidity that comes from you. Get lost, you poser! Screen Beret! LIAR!!!

[Un Con Troll Able]

Man...you really need to take a Prozac.

[DesertFox]

Actually, we and the Japanese owe the success of our postwar occupation to one man -- Douglas MacArthur. In one of history's great ironies, the guy who would subsequently (and properly) get fired was also the one guy in the right place at the right time to help remake Japanese society. It's an example of one of the few times in history that history got something right, an example of power used wisely and well to redirect an entire people.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Actually, we and the Japanese owe the success of our postwar occupation to one man -- Douglas MacArthur. In one of history's great ironies, the guy who would subsequently (and properly) get fired was also the one guy in the right place at the right time to help remake Japanese society. It's an example of one of the few times in history that history got something right, an example of power used wisely and well to redirect an entire people.

And you gotta love that corn cob pipe!

http://www.checkpoint-online.ch/CheckPoint/Images/N-MacArthur.jpg

[Un Con Troll Able]

Actually, we and the Japanese owe the success of our postwar occupation to one man -- Douglas MacArthur. In one of history's great ironies, the guy who would subsequently (and properly) get fired was also the one guy in the right place at the right time to help remake Japanese society. It's an example of one of the few times in history that history got something right, an example of power used wisely and well to redirect an entire people.

Agreed. But the brute force used to set the stage for MacArthur's rule was something the Japanese had in the backs of their minds. You can bank on it.

[DesertFox]

Well, there's no doubt that they were totally defeated, as defeated as it's possible to be, and completely reliant on the good will and behavior of the conqueror. That background had an immense influence on all that followed. The plain goodness of American soldiers won over a people that had been raised to believe we ate children.

[Wyatt_Junker]

In UCTA's defense, the Marshall Plan was indeed the good faith effort which lead to forging entirely new cultures, purging them of their past and showing them that we were not conquerers but liberators. That said, we did firebomb Germany and we did nuke Japan(innocents did die even though it wasn't our fault). That's all UCTA is saying here. And it is doubtful whether the Marshall Plan would have even worked without such initial ferocity which laid the groundwork for such reform. I don't think he's mindlessly celebrating gore.

[Un Con Troll Able]

Thank you. That is correct.

[DesertFox]

Well, I don't agree. He has said you don't fight war according to "Shoot this guy, but don't shoot that guy -- and hit that building, but don't that other one." We've always fought war just that way -- except for people such as Calley. We have never, not once, gone to war with the idea of killing everybody who wasn't on our side and laying waste the countryside. We have always, from the beginning, used discretion, recognizing that killing and destroying in war is different from murder and arson in war.

I suspect UCTA's gripe is one I share -- this readiness by the yellow backs in our midst back home to hold soldiers under the stress of combat to standards that only make sense where civilization is established and intact. War is the breakdown of civilization, and to act as if that were not the case is bullshit.

[Un Con Troll Able]

Well, I don't agree. He has said you don't fight war according to We've always fought war just that way -- except for people such as Calley. We have never, not once, gone to war with the idea of killing everybody who wasn't on our side and laying waste the countryside. We have always, from the beginning, used discretion, recognizing that killing and destroying in war is different from murder and arson in war.

I now know what Michael Corleone was talking about in The Godfather III when he said, "Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in."

Of course you are right. My philosophy has never been about annihilating everything that moves. Ultimately, defeating an enemy is about ground acquisition. And for that you need the Army and Marines -- and a different set of rules. One of those rules -- at least it used to be -- is that if you are a part of the general populace, you need to run when the shooting starts. Nowadays, the Iraqis whine when they have to close their shops because of combatant activities -- or demonstrate when a American munition goes astray.

These are not the actions of a people who have learned a profound lesson regarding freedom. And if you can't truly appreciate something's value, then you are going to have a helluva time developing the motivation to defend it with everything you have. That's all I'm saying about the Iraqis.


I suspect UCTA's gripe is one I share -- this readiness by the yellow backs in our midst back home to hold soldiers under the stress of combat to standards that only make sense where civilization is established and intact. War is the breakdown of civilization, and to act as if that were not the case is bullshit.

That is one of my gripes.

[omegatrump]

It reminds me of Vietnam, we never knew if the booby trap that was set on the rice patty dike was set by those who lived in the houch adjacent to the dike. One thing we knew was that they didn't trip the wire, or step on the detonator, we did. Did they know it was there?

It's a bad set of circumstances. I had a guy in my squad who would go crazy when he saw a Mama San running across a dike to get away from our approach, he would drop his M60 to the ground and say "can I kill them, can I kill them"? He was also a guy who was always smoked out of his head. The stress, and uncertainty surrounding men in combat contributes to various actions and reactions. I am reluctant to judge these cases knowing only what we are told by the media. I can judge some things based on my own past experience, and I know that if I hadn't have been there to say NO, poor little people would have died unnecessarily. Is that what happened in Iraq? I don't know.

What I do know is that, if we are still in Iraq in 100 years, we will still be dealing with W's great religion of Peace. We will still have this death cult to contend with, and if we are stupid enough to have ourselves positioned as peace keepers, we will still be targets of opportunity.

[DesertFox]

Americans have been targets of opportunity for 30-40 years now, all over the world. We just didn't know it until recently.

[Riverboat]

I never thought I would say what I am about to say to anyone on this board. No matter.

You are a complete idiot. And I mean that. You are the type of 'conservative' who simply doesn't have a clue -- and you never will.


Well, sir. I suppose I spoke rather hastily earlier, and so I hereby retract my comment with the word ignorant. Perhaps that pushed the wrong button that caused you to say something you have never said. I apologize.

That said, I have to wonder why you directed a rant at me alone inasmuch as my comments were consonant with Desert Fox, Rink, Nutrider, and Suzie. I reserve all due respect toward DF's military knowledge, as well as WolfCounsel who gave the thumb's up on my post, aside from the word ignorant, although he can be pretty feisty, too.

You've made you position as clear as I hope I made mine. I'm not in the habit of antagonizing fellow posters unless they're clearly trolls.

[DesertFox]

Also, Riverboat always provides the beer, so it's smart to stay on his good side.

[FatherTime]

The problem as I see it is that you have U.S. Armed Forces that were never trained to function as police, security guards, and peacekeepers being asked to function in exactly those capacities. Then they are asked to perform those duties with anywhere from 33% to 25% of the numbers it would take to adequately perform the tasks.

Throw in that Post-occupation stabilization is a highly political process as opposed to the highly military process of the occupation itself, and you have a very frustrated fighting force.

You mean, like we did during WWII in Germany and Italy?

Well over 5K soldiers died the first year after VE day. Another 3K after that for the next 2 years. On average, since the cold war, hundreds of US soldiers have died due to various causes in Germany.

This was reported on CNN just a few weeks ago.

[Rhino]

No, not Saddam -- a little more like George Patton.Funny, I don't recall Patton supporting genocide. While that may not be what you were advocating, that's sure what Dowple's post sounded like.

[Dowple]

Funny, I don't recall Patton supporting genocide. While that may not be what you were advocating, that's sure what Dowple's post sounded like.

You are arguing in bad faith. It's deceptive to turn my argument into an endorsement of genocide. (Elsewhere, since the beginning of this war, I have, in fact, endorsed our alliance with a Kurdish mini state, dependent on the US in the same way as Israel is, which will do much of our dirty work in the region. Hardly genocidal.) I have said that Iraqis have not suffered enough. They have not undergone a thorough enough sense of defeat to know that they cannot sympathize with and hide our enemies. And I believe we should be absolutely ruthless in squashing the "insurgency", following the earlier example of the French in Algiers, which was successful, despite DeGaulle's decision to retreat.

It is absurd to believe that we are winning anything in Iraq with the current re-enactment of "hearts and minds" failure from Vietnam. You will never convert moslem nations who have been the blood enemy of Christendom and the West for 1400 years into Jeffersonian democracies. The best we can do is the aforementioned Kurdish mini ally, which depends on us for its very breath. Ten minutes after America leaves Iraq, a moslem strongman will take charge.

BTW, if anyone still wants to make that idiotic comparison of postwar Germany to "postwar" Iraq, then I challenge them to tell me just when George W. Bush will travel through the streets of Baghdad in an open air convertible. Harry Truman felt secure enough to do so just a couple of months after Germany's defeat. And the Germans, after all, were occupied and defeated. If the Iraqis are "liberated" lovers of freedom, as I'm told on this thread, Bush should be able to camp outside in downtown Baghdad.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/photographs/view.php?id=2626

[Rhino]

You are arguing in bad faith. It's deceptive to turn my argument into an endorsement of genocide.Read my post again. I said that's what your post "sounded like."

"If the marines were ambushed, they should have leveled the entire nighborhood."

"And I'd pass out videos of Abu Ghraib as a model for behavior instead of a crime."

That's a scorched earth policy Patton would not have stood for.

[Dowple]

Read my post again. I said that's what your post "sounded like."

"If the marines were ambushed, they should have leveled the entire nighborhood."

"And I'd pass out videos of Abu Ghraib as a model for behavior instead of a crime."

That's a scorched earth policy Patton would not have stood for.

A neighborhood does not equal "genocide", does it? It does "sound like" an enclave deserving of eradication, however.

As for abu ghraib, shaming the iraqi prisoners and threatening to pass around photos of them in group homosexual acts reportedly worked. Otherwise, I saw nothing at abu ghraib that was "genocide" or even "abuse". If abu ghraib or a particular Iraqi neighborhood qualifies as "scorched earth policy" we might as well pack it all in right now.l

[Rhino]

A neighborhood does not equal "genocide", does it?It does if you extrapolate that policy to the entire country, which you sure seemed to advocate.

If abu ghraib or a particular Iraqi neighborhood qualifies as "scorched earth policy" we might as well pack it all in right now.lIt's more an attitude rather than a particular incident. Classifying them as subhumans deserving of no respect or dignity is indeed a large step toward genocidal tendency.

[Dowple]

It does if you extrapolate that policy to the entire country, which you sure seemed to advocate.

It's more an attitude rather than a particular incident. Classifying them as subhumans deserving of no respect or dignity is indeed a large step toward genocidal tendency.

I see that you are once more trying to turn this thread and my contribution into a personal argument. Why do you constantly do this, over and over? I don't care about personality, which is why I don't respond to jeers, insults, and implications about posters' morality or worthiness. I wished to argue the issue. And, again, I don't care about Iraqis or their living standards, which is where most of American policy is situated currently. It's not my job to raise Iraqis (or Afghanis) out of the stone age. I don't think a country rich with oil and control over trade routes throughout the region should require my country's continued contribution in lives, money, and effort to make them comfortable. If Iraqis truly want freedom, liberty, and opportunity, I'd think three years, 3,000 lives, and half a trillion dollars should have given them more than an adequate start. The fact that it hasn't, that their society (friendly to all outward appearance, nursing hatred and revenge privately) is a murderous mess, incapable of self governance is THEIR fault. They can indeed eat rats and cockroaches and live in stone rubble. If they wanted to do otherwise, they'd turn over the insurgents in their midst--unless of course they themselves harbor the same beliefs.

[Un Con Troll Able]

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Incident_command]

I'm still waiting for the pro-American rally in Bagdad, the people of Iraq turning in the terrorists by the droves, and the resulting fear terrorists would have of the people of Iraq.

[Un Con Troll Able]

Funny, I don't recall Patton supporting genocide. While that may not be what you were advocating, that's sure what Dowple's post sounded like.

No, his post does not "sound" like that. And neither did mine.

You are mischaracterizing our comments.

Liberals attack the conservative agenda regarding welfare by accusing them of "wanting to starve (unspoken: black) children." Its a vile and slanderous attempt at intimidation by personalizing and redefining the crux of the discussion.

This is no different. We speak of our indifference towards our very costly -- costly in terms of lives and money -- do-gooder efforts in that country. We speak of our belief that our military should respond to hostile fire in a manner that is consistent with pre-BPC policymaking (Before Political Correctness) -- to say nothing of being consistent with our behavior during WWI and WWII...

...and suddenly we are genocidal maniacs.

Whatever.

[Rhino]

I see that you are once more trying to turn this thread and my contribution into a personal argument. Why do you constantly do this, over and over? I don't care about personality, which is why I don't respond to jeers, insults, and implications about posters' morality or worthiness. I wished to argue the issue.When did I ever get personal?

And, again, I don't care about Iraqis or their living standards.......unless of course they themselves harbor the same beliefs.Was all that addressed to me? I never addressed any of that.

[Rhino]

No, his post does not "sound" like that. And neither did mine.I explained why it sounded like that to me, and I never attacked anyone. Stop being paranoid.

[omegatrump]

Americans have been targets of opportunity for 30-40 years now, all over the world. We just didn't know it until recently.

And who's fault is that? And absolutely nothing we are now doing will change it. This Vietnam rerun in Iraq is destined for the same outcome only worse. In Vietnam we played footsies with the commies. Here we are Pooh poohing a murderous death cult that will continue it's course to Armageddon.

While I can see the proverbial (both sides) of this issue, I in no way want to see this idiotic administration prosecute our Marines for war crimes just to divert attention from their own ineptitude.

[Borgia]

You mean, like we did during WWII in Germany and Italy?

Well over 5K soldiers died the first year after VE day. Another 3K after that for the next 2 years. On average, since the cold war, hundreds of US soldiers have died due to various causes in Germany.

This was reported on CNN just a few weeks ago.

Actually, there were no "terrorist" operations in post-war Germany. The Nazis had tried to set it up so it would happen but it did not materialize.

I'd love to see your source for the 5k deaths since my source said there was a total of 1 (or was it 2) deaths of American GIs due to enemy activities.

[Rhino]

.....I in no way want to see this idiotic administration prosecute our Marines for war crimes just to divert attention from their own ineptitude.Are you kidding me? You can't seriously think that's what's happening.

[omegatrump]

I'm still waiting for the pro-American rally in Bagdad, the people of Iraq turning in the terrorists by the droves, and the resulting fear terrorists would have of the people of Iraq.

I agree. My opinion is that it will never happen. The hatred they have for the west and the Jew is more than the hatred they have for each other. They will use us to help them eradicate their rival killers, as we have done to some extent with Saddam, and then they will set up their own brand of Saddam at the earliest opportunity.

They have, no end to their hatred. This Police action can not be equated with the conquest of Nazi Germany, nor Imperialist Japan. We have not even begun to deal with the heart of this conflict.

So we depose one of their War Lords. We turn around with the very next breath, and follow Henry Kissinger's directive to 'scale Israel down', and give Land to the same murderous terrorist that are blowing our boys up in Iraq. Idiocy! Pure unadulterated Idiocy!

[omegatrump]

Are you kidding me? You can't seriously think that's what's happening.

What else could it be? The Bush rat administration is in the toilet. He needs another Abu Graib situation to put on the alter of acceptance at PC headquarters. More E4's and E5's to take some blame.

What happened at Mai Lai in Vietnam was despicable. What happened in McNamara's office in Washington DC was a thousand times more despicable. All McNamara got out of it was a book deal.

All I am saying is let's keep things in perspective.

[Rhino]

All I am saying is let's keep things in perspective.So, why don't you?

Let's come back to earth and keep this thread out of Conspiracy Corridor, please.

[Rhino]

Lawyer: Pentagon Probe of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Not Focusing on Marine Officers

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. — Pentagon investigations into the shooting deaths of Iraqi civilians are focused on about a dozen enlisted Marines and do not target their commanding officers, the lawyer for one of the officers said Tuesday.

The investigations of up to two dozen killings and whether Marines covered them up are focused on the troops who were in a four-vehicle convoy hit by a roadside bomb last Nov. 19 in the western Iraqi city of Haditha, attorney Paul Hackett said.

The highest-ranking Marine targeted by the investigations is a staff sergeant who led the convoy, said Hackett, a Marine reservist and Iraqi war veteran who last year narrowly lost a special election for a U.S. House seat in Ohio.

The troops are from Kilo Company, part of Camp Pendleton's 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment. Hackett represents Capt. James Kimber, one of three battalion officers relieved of command last month.

"My purpose is to separate his name from the alleged war crimes that took place," Hackett told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "He's not under investigation for anything related to what has played out in the press."

Kimber, who was nominated for a Bronze Star for valor in Haditha, was relieved of command because his subordinates used profanity, removed sunglasses and criticized the performance of Iraqi security services during an interview with Britain's Sky News TV, according to Hackett.

The Pentagon has named two others who were relieved of command: Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, the battalion's commander, and Capt. Lucas McConnell, who commanded Kilo Company. Hackett does not represent either man but said neither was present for the shootings and he believes neither man is a target of the investigations........http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197519,00.html

[Rhino]

White House: Details of Iraqi Civilian Killings Probe to Be Made Public

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

WASHINGTON — The White House said the details of an investigation into the killings of Iraqi civilians in Haditha in November 2005 will be released to the public when the probe is completed.

Press Secretary Tony Snow said that he has been assured by the Pentagon that "all the details" will be made available. "We'll have a picture of what happened," Snow said.

Separate investigations seek to determine whether the Nov. 19 killings in the western Iraqi city of Haditha were criminal and whether the Marines involved and their commanding officers tried to hide the truth.

The Pentagon has said little publicly. What is known is that a military convoy hit a roadside bomb, killing one Marine. The Marine Corps had initially attributed 15 civilian deaths to the bombing and a firefight with insurgents, eight of whom the Marines reported had been killed.

Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and decorated war veteran who has been briefed by military officials, has said Marines shot and killed unarmed civilians in a taxi at the scene and went into two homes and shot others.

On Tuesday, Snow said President Bush learned of the killings only after a reporter from Time magazine asked questions. Time published an article in March that said the Pentagon was investigating the incident........http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197591,00.html

[Suzie]

This is what happens when the enemy wears no uniform and those out to kill Americans are of every age and sex. This is a result of kill or be killed and they have seen their own fall at the hands of terrorists. Till any of us have been there, INCLUDING Murtha we really have no right to judge these men without all the information. Vietnam is one thing, but they did have a uniformed fighting force there and the lines are less blurred when that is present.

[omegatrump]

This is what happens when the enemy wears no uniform and those out to kill Americans are of every age and sex. This is a result of kill or be killed and they have seen their own fall at the hands of terrorists. Till any of us have been there, INCLUDING Murtha we really have no right to judge these men without all the information. Vietnam is one thing, but they did have a uniformed fighting force there and the lines are less blurred when that is present.

You are partly right Suzie, the North Vietnamese Army sometimes wore a uniform. The Viet Cong wore no uniform and did exactly what the Iraqi Insurgency dose. They melted into the civilian population.

[Incident_command]

Actually, there were no "terrorist" operations in post-war Germany. The Nazis had tried to set it up so it would happen but it did not materialize.

I'd love to see your source for the 5k deaths since my source said there was a total of 1 (or was it 2) deaths of American GIs due to enemy activities.

Wrong again.

The US and Britan both had major trouble with Germany untill 47-48. The US used a firing squad and the British actually used a guillotine to deal with them. It wasn't untill the German started turning them in "nazis" that it stopped. I've read this in a few books on this and the history channel did a documentary on it. I'll get you links ASAP.

[Rhino]

I've read this in a few books on this and the history channel did a documentary on it.I saw that documentary too. Don't remember the name.

[Incident_command]

When they said the Brits brought over a guillotine it shocked me. I had never heard it before.

[omegatrump]

Oh well, it's all going to be a moot argument now. The whole American military is to get full PC Attitude indoctrination. This will fix all problems for sure.

[omegatrump]

When they said the Brits brought over a guillotine it shocked me. I had never heard it before.

A guillotine? I wonder if that is when the Population started giving up the Nazi hold outs?

[Nutrider99]

You are partly right Suzie, the North Vietnamese Army sometimes wore a uniform. The Viet Cong wore no uniform and did exactly what the Iraqi Insurgency dose. They melted into the civilian population.
Actually, the Viet Cong were North Vietnamese regulars who infiltrated the south in the years preceding the war to arrange guerilla warfare. They were decimated in the Tet Offensive. The NVA had uniforms, though many times they would also attempt to blend in with the civilans. In Vietnam, the population were primarily rural farmers who were not all that concerned with the politics of the cities so long as they could live in peace. They were an oppressed people who were ALWAYS oppressed. Diem was no better than Ho Chi Minh, who was no better than the French.

In Vietnam, we were fighting the spread of communism, and by extension the governments of China and the USSR. In Iraq we are fighting generational ignorance and oppression that has been a way of life for the Iraqi people. They are slave to a false religion that glorifies murder and terrorism. Enlightenment takes time. Reformers must replace all the teachers and the radical clergy. This is a fight that freedom loving Iraqis must lead, but one that we must support. However, it is also a time where brutality must be met with brutality. Until Iraq declares membership in a terrorism organization to be a capital offense and the foreign terrorists are beheaded in the public square, there will be no peace.

A reminder to all you anti war fools. Peace lies only on the other side of victory. If you think we have any choice but to first destroy enemies set on our destruction, you are nothing but a fool and should not have voting rights. America did not start this war. America did not even fight back for years. Now we are fighting back. This is a war we cannot afford to lose. If you do not stand in favor of victory, then you stand in favor of defeat, which makes you also the enemy.

[Borgia]

Wrong again.

The US and Britan both had major trouble with Germany untill 47-48. The US used a firing squad and the British actually used a guillotine to deal with them. It wasn't untill the German started turning them in "nazis" that it stopped. I've read this in a few books on this and the history channel did a documentary on it. I'll get you links ASAP.

I look forward to your links. If they are not forthcoming or I provide historians, (not op-ed pieces) saying otherwise will you admit as such?

[Borgia]

From the Christian Science Monitor:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0903/p02s01-woiq.html

In "Total War," Peter Calvocoressi writes that the werewolves were created in 1944, as a "last resort under Himmler's command." But the only death credited them is that of the mayor of Aachen, on March 25, 1945, before the Nazis surrendered on May 7 that same year.

"I couldn't find any mention in the US Army's official history of the German occupation of any American combat deaths," says Daniel Benjamin, coauthor of "The Age of Sacred Terror." "I think all the respected histories agree on this point - the occupation's problems had nothing to do with resistance."
<!-- end story --><!-- BEGIN email this and print this links --><!-- begin line break and spacer -->

[Borgia]

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=2813&click_id=2813&art_id=iol1068101125208U262&set_id=6

And resistance to US occupation of Germany was quite weak, says Timothy Naftali of the University of Virginia.

"Besides the single assassination of a single mayor in the western town of Aachen, [which happened BEFORE the end of the war] and a few scattered incidents of unruly Hitlerjugend, there was no German resistance to speak of," Naftali said.

[Borgia]

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133c/133cTexts/USOccGerm+IraqHNet03v.htm

According to the Statistical and Accounting Branch of the Office of the Adjutant General's Final Report from 1947, there were forty-two battle casualties from June through December 1945. Included in this number were thirty two (32) killed in action, eight (8) soldiers, who died of wounds and injuries they sustained in action, and two (2) that were missing in action and declared dead during the reporting period.(p. 32) The report does not list the nature of the action that killed these soldiers. Only a thorough search of unit journals and histories in the National Archives would answer that question.

German resistance to the Allied occupation manifested itself mainly in harassment of occupation troops through telephone wire cuttings, stringing of "decapitation" wire across streets (that never decapitated anyone), intimidation of German women who "fraternized" with Allied soldiers, and similar actions. Most unit records I have examined did not attribute these acts to an organized resistance, but rather to juvenile delinquents or disgruntled German veterans.

This is for the first 6 months after VE day - 42 casualties. Not a whole lot compared to the 5000 you said happened in the first year after VE day. Unless those next six months were a total bloodbath....

[DesertFox]

And who's [sic] fault is that?Not mine. Must be yours.

[omegatrump]

Actually, the Viet Cong were North Vietnamese regulars who infiltrated the south in the years preceding the war to arrange guerilla warfare. They were decimated in the Tet Offensive. The NVA had uniforms, though many times they would also attempt to blend in with the civilans. In Vietnam, the population were primarily rural farmers who were not all that concerned with the politics of the cities so long as they could live in peace. They were an oppressed people who were ALWAYS oppressed. Diem was no better than Ho Chi Minh, who was no better than the French.

In Vietnam, we were fighting the spread of communism, and by extension the governments of China and the USSR.


You are partly right nutrider, there were no doubt a few NVA infiltrates in the Viet Cong. They would be classified as recruiters and trainers, but the Viet Cong were drawn from the Communist sympathizers in the South.

The rural farmers were mainly concerned with survival

Were we fighting the spread of Communism? Decimating the civilian population of the poor downtrodden people of South Vietnam? How could that possably have an affect on China, and the USSR? Now Vietnam is all Communist.

So you are telling me, that America goes to war against an aggressor like Communism, and fights that war within a population that does not produce the aggressor. (ie. China, USSR, North Vietnam) Is there any wonder that we were not successful? Was it cowardice, or intelligence that kept America from facing the enemy? The Communism we say we were fighting is still intact.

Now comes a remarkably similar situation. Convenient for the nations that do produce the aggressor, they have contained the war to a population that you say has freedom loving people in it. Several of these nations support the combatants that have been exported to Iraq to wage war against their common enemy, US, their populations are not affected by the war, and as long as they can chip away at our resolve without being affected they win. As did China, and North Vietnam.

I say, if we are going to commit to a war, then fight the war in the population that produces the aggressor. What we have now is a world spectacle being developed in which we will eventually be featured as the dirty bad guys, because our enemies include more than those who are responsable for the continued violence.

[EdmundDantes]

Word for word...amen.

You don't liberate aggressor nations. You conquer them and impose your will. You don't let them sit at the head of the damn table without having earned it.

You draw fire from a building -- then you turn the structure into rubble without worrying about evacuating it first. You locate a hotbed for insurgency -- then you level the place, even if that place is a city.

As to the story...I just read another article on this subject. This looks very, very serious -- and that there may have been many, many more victims than were originally reported.

And if we did that then all the Libs would be correct when they call us an imperialist country(grammar aside).

We do not do that! We liberate then allow the liberated to choose their own government, that is what we have always done. And when they choose to grow up to hate the US we accept that effrontery as well.

We do not conquer, and subjugate, we leave that to those who rule by fear, and when those people get ballsy enough to challenge us we kick them out.

[Wyatt_Junker]

I would say that when it comes to civs, passivity is identical to culpability.

Some may say they are afraid to act. Many probably are. However, there are also, I am sure, some 'civs' who act to support the enemy. That's the only way the enemy could sustain itself, within networks of social acceptability, even encouragement, direct or not. And there's a third group; the fair weathered fans. They are the undecideds, riding the fence, looking at the conflict without getting involved... waiting to see who wins, then they'll fall into line.

All three groups are the enemy, along with the official, more outspoken enemy. At least to some degree. Its the same way Ali fought Frazier and Foreman, using his back to bob against the ropes. He adopted a victim's posture and then, when it suited him, he unleashed his stored energy and started swinging.

Its a simple analogy sure, but when I farm the soil, I rip the land first. I loosen it up. It must be cultivated. I don't just drop fruit seed on hard ground. It has to get into the soil. The only way the seed can get in is unless the land is raked first. Every square inch.

Its the same in wrestling. You only get off the guy when he says 'uncle'. You have his arm in a precarious position, threatening to snap it behind his back.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope all my analogies are stupid and wrong and mistaken, for our sake and theirs. I would like to see me absolutely wrong, but nature herself speaks against it. You have to crush something before you can dig it out. Its just the way nature works, human or otherwise. You can't lay topsoil and roses on top of granite.

[Lubbock]

Question: What's the difference between an ammo dump and a Mosque?

Answer: You don't find a copy of the Koran in an ammo dump.

Sad to say, but I come down on the side of "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out".

When we went up against Germany and Japan, we could identify the enemy by the uniform he wore, and still we didn't go to war worrying about collateral damage and civilian casualties.

That's not how you subdue the enemy: the entity that wants you dead and your country and way of life destroyed.

How on earth we ever hope to win the Muslims over to a democratized way of life, I don't know; not as long as the factions are killing one another; hate for America or anything "western" seems to be the only thing that unites the Sunnis and the Shi'ias.

Until we get about the business of leveling large parts of that country (Iraq), and start on Iran; killing them in sufficient numbers to make them understand that we are not going to put up with any more of it --over here or over there, it will drag on and on and our standing in the world looks worse and worse.

You can not fight a PC war, worrying about sacred mosques and hurt feelings.

Saturation bombing until you can point your finger and say, "now you SOBs are going to live in peace with the rest of the world, or we'll kill what's left of you."

Does Dresden come to mind?

Sad to say, but that's the only thing that will ever put an end to it.

Forget winning their hearts and minds.

That's a joke.

I don't care about their hearts and minds; I care about them respecting life and the right of people who do not subscribe to Islam to live in peace and freedom.

Islam is not a religion of peace, it's a death cult.

Until large parts of this PC world we live in gets that throught their collective head, Muslims will keep on killing without regard to the consequences.

Muslim terrorists will not stop until we give them a reason to stop. So far, we have not.

[Borgia]

Sad to say, but I come down on the side of "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out".

I have a great idea, inspired by your post. Let's make it law that all Muslims worldwide should wear special clothes and badges to identify them as Muslims. Then we can confiscate their belongings, round em all up and force them to live in special camps. Once there we can gas them all, man woman, child, baby. Let God sort em out.

After all, Islam is just a death cult and it is us or them. Let's not tiptoe around it.

[ldb83]

^^^
:claps:

[Nutrider99]

You are partly right nutrider, there were no doubt a few NVA infiltrates in the Viet Cong. They would be classified as recruiters and trainers, but the Viet Cong were drawn from the Communist sympathizers in the South.
According to General Giap, the Viet Cong were northern infiltrates who either recruited or conscripted manpower from the south. Most if not all of the organizers were actually NVA regulars.

Were we fighting the spread of Communism? Decimating the civilian population of the poor downtrodden people of South Vietnam?
Yes, and it worked. For the most part, communism was contained. It would have been completely contained, but the democreeps who started the war led the charge to defund it when Nixon was elected, and people like Kerry, Fonda and Rather helped snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The war was nearly won after the Tet Offensive failed so miserably, but the American media successfully portrayed the overwhelming American victory as a loss.

How could that possably have an affect on China, and the USSR? Now Vietnam is all Communist.
It did have an effect. Eventually, the USSR fell apart. China, while still our greatest threat, is less of a threat with the USSR splintered as it is.

So you are telling me, that America goes to war against an aggressor like Communism, and fights that war within a population that does not produce the aggressor. (ie. China, USSR, North Vietnam)
The agressor in this case was the government of North Vietnam who invaded the government of South Vietnam for the purpose of siezing control. They were funded by the Communists, but it was Ho Chi Minh who started the war.

Now comes a remarkably similar situation.
There are no important similarities, other than the treachery of the democreeps who once again are attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. There are no major nations funding the terrorists. Our enemies do business with nations hostile to the US and supportive of terrorism, but radical Islam also threatens Russia. It isn't so much of a threat to China, because China simply kills them.

I say, if we are going to commit to a war, then fight the war in the population that produces the aggressor.
Our war is with the radical Islamists, not an individual nation. The reason we liberated rather than decimated Iraq is that the Iraqi people were enslaved under Islam.

What we have now is a world spectacle being developed in which we will eventually be featured as the dirty bad guys, because our enemies include more than those who are responsable for the continued violence.

What we have is a world war in which a large percentage of Americans are actually cheering for the enemy because they see our defeat as a chance to re-claim political power. As shallow as it sounds, it's 100% accurate. We sacrifice the lives of our soldiers to protect the innocents. Our enemies sacrifice the lives of innocents because they know they cannot win a face to face with with the American soldiers. Our enemies DO NOT include those not responsible for the violence. Our enemies are the terrorists and the nations who sponsor them. There are no "good" wars, but our cause is just and so long as we can remained focused on victory and ignore the whining of detractors too stupid to comprehend what failure would entail, we WILL be victorious.

[Maggie_T]

I have a great idea, inspired by your post. Let's make it law that all Muslims worldwide should wear special clothes and badges to identify them as Muslims. Then we can confiscate their belongings, round em all up and force them to live in special camps. Once there we can gas them all, man woman, child, baby. Let God sort em out.

After all, Islam is just a death cult and it is us or them. Let's not tiptoe around it.


Didn't know you were a Nazi, Borgia. Or are your just trying to live up to your name? Either way, shame on you. :licky:

[Rhino]

I have a great idea, inspired by your post. Let's make it law that all Muslims worldwide should wear special clothes and badges to identify them as Muslims. Then we can confiscate their belongings, round em all up and force them to live in special camps. Once there we can gas them all, man woman, child, baby. Let God sort em out.

After all, Islam is just a death cult and it is us or them. Let's not tiptoe around it.Waxing sarcastic again, eh? LOL!

[Borgia]

Didn't know you were a Nazi, Borgia. Or are your just trying to live up to your name? Either way, shame on you. :licky:

Did my post have something wrong with it? Lubbock says to "kill em all and let God sort em out." I am just proposing a plan, a solution, where she can implement her desires.

By the way, the Borgias were not Nazis.

[Borgia]

Waxing sarcastic again, eh? LOL!

Moi? You must be mistaking me for someone else. I was so enamoured with Lubbock's plan of killing them all and letting God sort them out that I thought I would make a recommendation for a solution that she might subscribe to. It certainly would be a final solution, no?

[Rhino]

Moi?
:hahaha:

[Maggie_T]

Did my post have something wrong with it?

Oh, so when Lubbok proposes something like that, it's genocide. When you propose it, you get all doe-eyed and ask "Was there something wrong with my post?"

Here, guys. One more example of liberal double standards.

By the way, the Borgias were not Nazis.

*G R O A N* Of course not, cretin. But they had a habit of bumping off those they did not like.


Lord, give me patience.

[Maggie_T]

Moi?

Oui, toi. ;)

[Rhino]

He was being sarcastic, Mags.

[Lubbock]

The Nazi red herring.

How many times have we seen the Criminal Liberal Left trot out that old dog and try to make it hunt? We've seen Dingy Harry do it, Sreamer Dean do it, The Pig In A Pants Suit do it.

Hey, if it's good enough for that bunch of thugs, then it's surely good enough for You Know Who.

Nazism is the last refuge of a Liberal, when they have nothing left in their arsenal to fight with.

Accuse your opponet of being a Nazi, and that settles it. You win, because there is nothing more vile than a Nazi.

I give. You got me.

[Lubbock]

Oh, I missed one.

That Ignorant Sympathy Whore, Cindy Sheean, accused Dubya of being a Nazi.

I'm honored to be in such fine company!

[Borgia]

Lubbock, I certainly do not think you are a Nazi. But when you say "kill em all and let God sort em out" I question what you mean by that. So, what do you eman by that? Should we start indiscriminatley start killing all the Cult of Death Muslims and let God worry about justice for them? If so, how is that ANY different than what the Nazis did? They separated and killed people based solely on their religious affiliations.

Perhaps you were being stronger in your phrasing than truly intended and I misconstrued. It just seemed you had an air of seriousness about your post. Sometimes the written word is betrayed by its limitations.

[Borgia]

Oh, so when Lubbok proposes something like that, it's genocide. When you propose it, you get all doe-eyed and ask "Was there something wrong with my post?"

Here, guys. One more example of liberal double standards.

Do you agree that what Lubbock proposed essentially came to genocide? Why do you have a problem with me yet Lubbock gets the free pass?

Sorry my post came across as staight but I was being as sarcastic as can be. Rhino caught it. I illustrated my point that Lubbock's words supported genocide. Of course there was something wrong with my post but mine was pure sarcasm based on Lubbock's post. I in no way support any of what I wrote.

So, are YOU going to have a double-satandard by giving Lubbock a pass when she advocates killing them (Muslims) all and only berate my jokingly sarcastic lampoon of Lubbock's post?

Now that you know that I as being quite sarcastic, when can I expect you to critique your fellow conservative who advocates killing everyone in the Cult of Death? I presume you will be co9nsistent whether the offender is liberal or conservative, right? :)



*G R O A N* Of course not, cretin. But they had a habit of bumping off those they did not like. Lord, give me patience.
It is a handle, Maggie. In a similar vein Doom chose a comic book villain that is (in comic-book land) the despotic fascist ruler of a small nation bent on world domination. I don't see you getting bent out of shape about his nom de plume. :)

[Lubbock]

By the standards of the Criminal Liberal Left, we would have gotten our asses handed to us by the Germans and the Japanese. Maybe Hitler and Hirohito could have set down and carved up the US; The Japs get everything west of the Arkansas River, the Germans everything east.; and of course, England and all of Europe would have belonged to Germany --it almost did, until the US decided that Hitler had to be stopped.

Are you aware that more souls perished in the Twin Towers and Pentagon than at Pearl Harbor?

What do you do when your nation is attacked and people die?

If you're on the Criminal Liberal Left, you roll over and play dead. You give the agressor everything he wants --your country and your soul.

Do you believe Islam wants anything less.

Having lived in a Muslim country for a number of years, maybe I have a little better understanding of Islam than many of you.

Let me explain something to you: American is a nation of many, many faiths, as are most nations. Many may have a dominant religion, but for the most part, many faiths exist, side by side in relative harmony. That's one of the many things that make most nations civilized.

So far, my fellow Southern Baptists have not taken up arms against the Free Will Baptists because the Free Will faction doesn't believe, word for word, as the Southern faction.

The Catholics aren't killing the Methodists.

The Mormons aren't sending suicide bombers into the sanctuaries of the Episcopalians.

Not so with Islam. Just look at what the Muslims are trying to obliterate.

You need to study your history, beginning with the Old Testament; Sarah and Abraham. That's where it started; the Jew and the Arab. God said the Arab would live as a wild man, and be despised by all.

God knew what he was talking about.

[Gonzo67]

You're all forgetting the most important thing the "Marine Killing Probe" discovered:

Marines are not killing NEAR enough Rag-Heads, Camel Fukers, and Muslim Ass Monkeys as they could be.

I think we should send "Ammo Care Packages" to them.

Lets all buy boxes of ammo, personally autograph each bullet, and send them to the Marines, asking them to "Cap one for us!"

[Borgia]

Not so with Islam. Just look at what the Muslims are trying to obliterate.

You need to study your history, beginning with the Old Testament; Sarah and Abraham. That's where it started; the Jew and the Arab. God said the Arab would live as a wild man, and be despised by all.

God knew what he was talking about.

So should we wipe the Muslims off the face of the earth or not? Should we let God sort em out and we can all live happier down here?

[Maggie_T]

He was being sarcastic, Mags.

Do you agree that what Lubbock proposed essentially came to genocide? Why do you have a problem with me yet Lubbock gets the free pass?

Sorry my post came across as staight but I was being as sarcastic as can be. Rhino caught it.

Oh, for Pete's sake, I was JOKING, you pair of numbskulls. :rolleyes:

Man! You should make the most of my humorous mood, you know. They're few and far between.

OF COURSE, Borgia was sarcastic. I may disagree with everything he says, but I would never think he would seriously suggest extermination camps. That what liberals accuse conservatives of. Im a conservative, remember?

Incidentally, I would not believe it of Lubbock, either. I'm sure he said it to let off steam. I do that sometimes, too.

It is a handle, Maggie. In a similar vein Doom chose a comic book villain that is (in comic-book land) the despotic fascist ruler of a small nation bent on world domination. I don't see you getting bent out of shape about his nom de plume. :)

Sigh! Read above.

Ok, since no one appreciates my humor, from now on I'm going to be just my plain beastly self, and no exceptions. There. Now see what you've done.

:grin: :grin: :grin:

[Rhino]

Oh, for Pete's sake, I was JOKING, you pair of numbskulls. :rolleyes: Numbskull???

Sniff! Sniff!

:grin:

[Borgia]

Maggie:

Sorry about that. You know us guys, we tend to take things rather literally. LOL!

I too would like to think Lubbock was just talking and not really meaning what she says. But you need to be careful with that sort of language IMO since there does seem to be a small group of conservatives who think Islam is a terrible religion and in their hearts they would not mind if it were exterminated. I don't know if any reside here, I hope not. But they do exist and feed off the language Lubbock used.

[Maggie_T]

Well, you were one. But I wouve you all the same. ;) :grin:

[Maggie_T]

Maggie:

Sorry about that. You know us guys, we tend to take things rather literally. LOL!

I too would like to think Lubbock was just talking and not really meaning what she says. But you need to be careful with that sort of language IMO since there does seem to be a small group of conservatives who think Islam is a terrible religion and in their hearts they would not mind if it were exterminated. I don't know if any reside here, I hope not. But they do exist and feed off the language Lubbock used.

Borgia, I think it's more a case of them believing that Islamofacism is a terrible religion. Remember that the Koran says killing infidels (that's you and me, ducky) is rewarded by 72 virgins and a pat on the shoulder from the Big Guy. And then, we all still remember 9/11.

It's a vicious circle, I know. They kill us because they hate us, we pay back, they kill us again, and on and on and on.

I'm sure Lubbock did not mean it literally. OTOH, I myself would rather bump them off before they bump me off, I don't mind telling you. :blush:

[Lubbock]

Maggie: The only one here who has even mentioned extermination camps is You Know Who; --certainly not me.

You Know Who isn't half as clever as he thinks he is; anyone with one eye and half sense understands that You Know Who is doing what all libs do when they do not have a valid answer in a debate. Change the subject to Nazism, and become accusotory.

We've seen Lib after Lib do just that.

It's SOP.

How did we stop Hitler? Hitler's Army?

There is one truth in this world that so many folks have not yet grasped: you can not make a house pet out of a rattlesnake.

[Rhino]

you can not make a house pet out of a rattlesnake.Well, you can, but finding a veterinarian is a bitch!

[Wyatt_Junker]

I have a great idea, inspired by your post. Let's make it law that all Muslims worldwide should wear special clothes and badges to identify them as Muslims. Then we can confiscate their belongings, round em all up and force them to live in special camps. Once there we can gas them all, man woman, child, baby. Let God sort em out.

After all, Islam is just a death cult and it is us or them. Let's not tiptoe around it.

Naw. Not all of them. Maybe 10% will do the trick. I'm up for a good 150 million atomized, if we are to believe the extent to which Whahabbism has infected the damned children of the corn that is islam. That's probably a good tipping point.

What's interesting though is you defending a group via sarcasm who actually is forcing Jews to wear ID armbands as was just announced last week in Iran, sans sarcasm. Perhaps you'd like to aim your sarcasm to where its actually deserved.

Oh, that's right. You couldn't do that. The turbo-lib is all about making the victim the bully and turning the bully into the victim. One need look no farther than Israel to see that and how the Kaffiyeh is as popular now on college campii as Malcom X hats were in 1985.

[Maggie_T]

Maggie: The only one here who has even mentioned extermination camps is You Know Who; --certainly not me.

You Know Who isn't half as clever as he thinks he is; anyone with one eye and half sense understands that You Know Who is doing what all libs do when they do not have a valid answer in a debate. Change the subject to Nazism, and become accusotory.

We've seen Lib after Lib do just that.

It's SOP.

How did we stop Hitler? Hitler's Army?

There is one truth in this world that so many folks have not yet grasped: you can not make a house pet out of a rattlesnake.

Well, fortunately, I have no experience with rattlesnakes (shudders). But I do know that Islamofacists are serious business (I'm sure that's what you meant). Therapy and group hugs do not work with them.

[Maggie_T]

Well, you can, but finding a veterinarian is a bitch!


LOL. :rolleyes:

Looks like I'm not the only one who's in a frivolous mood today. ;)

[Borgia]

Borgia, I think it's more a case of them believing that Islamofacism is a terrible religion. Remember that the Koran says killing infidels (that's you and me, ducky) is rewarded by 72 virgins and a pat on the shoulder from the Big Guy. And then, we all still remember 9/11.

Oh, I agree that there are elements of Islam that are quite troubling but I would not paint the whole religion as such. Even the Bible has some verses that, taken out of context, do not make the religion as a whole look all that peaceful.


It's a vicious circle, I know. They kill us because they hate us, we pay back, they kill us again, and on and on and on.

I'm sure Lubbock did not mean it literally. OTOH, I myself would rather bump them off before they bump me off, I don't mind telling you. :blush:

Well, the crazy Muslims for sure. I'm with you there.

[Borgia]

Maggie: The only one here who has even mentioned extermination camps is You Know Who; --certainly not me.


All right, so what did you mean when you said you subscibe to the idea of "kill em all and let God sort em out"? Please expand what you meant by that.

[Borgia]

What's interesting though is you defending a group via sarcasm who actually is forcing Jews to wear ID armbands as was just announced last week in Iran, sans sarcasm. Perhaps you'd like to aim your sarcasm to where its actually deserved.

Where did I defend them? Frankly, I think the Iranians are led by a feebleminded loony. Did you want me to address them? Why not ask me about it instead of making rather stupid assumptions about my frame of mind with no evidence whatsoever?

[Lubbock]

After the 911 attacks, I had a hope that the Left would put away their hate for George W. Bush and come together, united as a nation, to fight the threat th t has sworn to destroy us and our freedom.


I remember both houses of Congress standing on the Capitol steps, holding hands, and singing God Bless America (loud and off key). I believed that was a signal that the Left would put America first.


Didn’t happen. The Libs walked right back inside the Capitol and went to work on a plan to politicize the war on terror, and throw every stumbling block known to man into the path of an administration that was working hard to get a grip on the mess left to them by a previous administration who had completely ignored terrorism through eight long, horrendous years.


As of this point in time, the Left has thrown everything at Bush they can: the so-called Bipartizan Commission; the complicit Leftist media leaking troop movement and intelligence gathering information, the sympathy whore Cindy Sheehan a platform, speeches on the floor of the House and Senate designed to demonstrate that George W. Bush is wrong, wrong, wrong.


The Left’s utter hate for George W. Bush is what’s brought us here to a point where it is perceived by militant Islam, they are winning. The Left’s hate for the president has only emboldened the terrorists, and will continue to do so until the day he leaves office.


I don’t know how many more lives will be lost here on our own soil as a result of militant Islam, but I predict that if a Lib takes office in ‘08, an attack will follow soon. The terrorists have been taught that the Libs will cry and whine and threaten, then in the end, do nothing.


This many years after 911, anyone who has not made a thorough study of militant Islam, really has no business attacking those of us who have.

The information is out there. It’s on he Net. All you have to do is look. You have to be careful where you look. There is some pretty bizarre and dangerous stuff floating around out in the ozone, but if you’re serious about learning, it can be done. The uneducated are just as dangerous in many ways as the terrorists.


In an article in the New York Post regarding the terrorist plot in Canada (homegrown terrorists), the Post led in their opening paragraph with a line that went something like this: Canada having a Nancy Kerrigan moment: WHY ME?


Why, Canada? Because all of the diversity and tolerance that you espouse and hold up as a badge of honor, is the very thing militant Islam is out to destroy.


Finally: to anyone who has never heard the old Marine saying, "kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out", and is so humorless as to take it seriously, you really need to lighten up; to anyone who is so self absorbed as to believe that every word posted on a thread on a web site is about them exclusively, you really need to broaden your horizons; not everything in life is about you.

In fact, most things in life are not about you.

[Borgia]

I remember both houses of Congress standing on the Capitol steps, holding hands, and singing God Bless America (loud and off key). I believed that was a signal that the Left would put America first.

Didn’t happen. The Libs walked right back inside the Capitol and went to work on a plan to politicize the war on terror, and throw every stumbling block known to man into the path of an administration that was working hard to get a grip on the mess left to them by a previous administration who had completely ignored terrorism through eight long, horrendous years.

Hmm, liberals voted overwhelmingly to authorize Bush to invade Afghanistan. That was the country that Al Qaeda seemed to be headquartered in. Do we have Osama yet? No? Hmmm.

Invading Iraq was less clear-cut than Afghanistan. No link to Al Qaeda. Less of a threat than Iran. There are substantive reasons to invade Iraq but they were certainly more debateable than the ones to invade Afghanistan.



Finally: to anyone who has never heard the old Marine saying, "kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out", and is so humorless as to take it seriously, you really need to lighten up; to anyone who is so self absorbed as to believe that every word posted on a thread on a web site is about them exclusively, you really need to broaden your horizons; not everything in life is about you.

In fact, most things in life are not about you.

I presumed the remark was not about me personally and was directed at the Muslim world. You failed to illuminate what you meant by your remark. The context of how you said it was providing a strategy with how we should proceed in Iraq aznd against the Muslim world in general. If it was just a quip, that is fne, but it did not seem like it considering the context.

So if you say it is just a quip, then I assume you do not espouse it as a strategy in Iraq?

[Lubbock]

This from someone who, well over one hundred years ago, understood clearly:



How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property either as a child, a wife, or a concubine must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.


Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248/50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899)

[Borgia]

This from someone who, well over one hundred years ago, understood clearly:
(...)
Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248/50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899)

Thanks for providing Winston's opinion. My opinion is the religion of Islam coupled with the despotic countries make for a bad combination for the progress of the Muslim people. That does not mean that the problems are soley the fault of their religion.

Islam is not that much different than Christianity was many years ago and Christianity certainly flowered into a better religion. Perhaps Islam will as well?

[Gonzo67]

Islam is not that much different than Christianity was many years ago and Christianity certainly flowered into a better religion. Perhaps Islam will as well?


Oh, it will... It will. Just as soon as it has every "Non-Believer dead, every country under it's control, and every soul on earth praying to "Allah" for guidance.

You want to be "pissed" at someone for words taken out of context, then here I am. I'm your man. Be pissed at me. Because the "figure of speech" that people use "sarcastically", I think SHOULD be used literally.

Fuk the rag heads. They kill innocent people, they kill THEIR OWN people while they go to worship. They've lived the entire span of their culture this way, they give NO REASON to believe they will EVER change or evolve into a "Peaceful Race". So we sit in a circle, hold hands and sing till the NEXT group of innocents get blown up, and when that happens, you think we should just form a new circle, hold hands, and start singing again.

Well, again... fuk them.

KILL THEM ALL. A couple bombs, turn the desert to glass. No more messing with them. End it now, end it right, end it for good.

You think I'm a "bad man" for thinking that? Tough shit. If you got so much "love in your heart" for those worthless fuks, I'm sure they'll loan you a camel and let you ride beside them... Oh wait, no they wont... because you're not a MUSLIM. They'll kill your ass just as fast. But hey, sit right down, and SING, maybe the REAL BAD MEN will just go away and leave you in peace because you didn't lift a finger to try and stop them.

If you think for ONE SECOND those muslim assholes give a shit about you, your wrong. You can kiss their ass in public, but when they have what they want, it's going to be YOUR HEAD detached from your body in the street with every other non-muslim.

They LIVE by the philosophy of "Kill Them All". And the ONLY way win against an enemy who is WILLING to kill himself as long as he takes you out in the process is to KILL THEM FIRST.

So yes, I FULLY ADVOCATE a repeat of Hiroshima, but on a MUCH LARGER SCALE. I will NOT be happy until that desert SPARKLES like the Emerald fukin City. ONE GIANT SHEET OF GLASS.

[Lubbock]

Perhaps when you arm yourself with knowledge, rather than relying solely on opinion, you'll understand just how backward your statement it: the problems in these despotic countries are exactly the fault of Islam.

Open your mind. Study your history, arm yourself with some material written by individuals who are knowledgeable and qualified to write on the subject, not wild-eyed-crazies (there is a lot of that out there too) and eventually, your mind will open up.

Eventually, you'll get it.

History. Study it.

If don't know, or refuse to understand, the history of what we're facing, you certainly will never understand the future and the steps that we are gong to have to take to make ourselves safe from terrorism.

[Rhino]

I think his point was that, just because bad things may be done in the name of a religion, it doesn't necessarily make that religion inherently evil. Examples for Christianity would be the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Many innocent people were killed in the name of Christianity, but that doesn't mean Christianity is evil. I believe that was his point.

[Borgia]

I think his point was that, just because bad things may be done in the name of a religion, it doesn't necessarily make that religion inherently evil. Examples for Christianity would be the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Many innocent people were killed in the name of Christianity, but that doesn't mean Christianity is evil. I believe that was his point.

Exactly my point. Trying to determine if the problem with a country is due to the religion or the despotic govt is difficult. But we have seen some pretty good progress in Egypt despite it being a Muslim nation so that would certainly lend credence to the notion that it is not solely the religion at fault.

[Borgia]

Perhaps when you arm yourself with knowledge, rather than relying solely on opinion, you'll understand just how backward your statement it: the problems in these despotic countries are exactly the fault of Islam.

Open your mind. Study your history, arm yourself with some material written by individuals who are knowledgeable and qualified to write on the subject, not wild-eyed-crazies (there is a lot of that out there too) and eventually, your mind will open up.

I have studied history quite extensively although my area of specialization is the era when Rome transitioned from Republic to Empire. Lots of good lessons there that are still applicable today. Perhaps you should study it? I'd start with the Brothers Gracchi if I were you and trace their actions and repercussions straight to Augustus Caesar.

[Borgia]

Gonzo:

What can be said? It is enough that your fellow conservatives disavow your point of view. I take it you don't actually know any Muslims, do you? Having met many and actually been a friend to one or two, I think I know where they are coming from. None seemed intent on destroying the US or killing the infidels.

[Lubbock]

Well, Gonzo, that’s certainly one way to go at it. There is a school of thought out there that firmly believes we’ll have to turn Mecca into a radio active parking lot that’ll glow in the dark for the next ten thousand years. There are folks who believe that, then and only then will we be able to point our finger squarely in the face of Islam and say, "Now, you SOBs get back in your caves and stay there for another six hundred years. No more killing. No more suicide bombers. No more trying to kill all of the Jews, no more trying to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, no more killing infidels, no more hijacked airplanes. We’re tired of it, and you’re going to stop."

Maybe in six hundred years when they venture out of their caves, they’ll be ready to join the civilized world.

And, in the long run, Daisy Cutters and Bunker Busters might be the only thing that finally gets their attention. Certainly, nothing that has been tried to date has been successful. Coddling them, while joining hands in a couple of verses of Kumbya hasn’t worked, and isn’t likely to.

To compare the history of Christianity to Islam is not applicable in the face of the kind of terrorism we are facing, world wide.

Christianity eventually "civilized" itself; Islam never will. At least not in the next five undred or so years.

[Borgia]

There are folks who believe that, then and only then will we be able to point our finger squarely in the face of Islam and say, "Now, you SOBs get back in your caves and stay there for another six hundred years. No more killing. No more suicide bombers. No more trying to kill all of the Jews, no more trying to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, no more killing infidels, no more hijacked airplanes. We’re tired of it, and you’re going to stop."

Well, put me in the camp that says that if you nuke Mecca, you will ensure Muslim terrorism beyond anything we have experiecned yet and it would last a hell of a long time.

Maybe in six hundred years when they venture out of their caves, they’ll be ready to join the civilized world.


To compare the history of Christianity to Islam is not applicable in the face of the kind of terrorism we are facing, world wide.

Christianity eventually "civilized" itself; Islam never will. At least not in the next five undred or so years.

I take it you don't know any Muslims either....

[Lubbock]

You obvilusly read only the parts of posts that you find fault with, as opposed to reading the entire post.

You may have missed the part about my living in Pakistan as a young adult. Back then it was West Pakistan and East Pakistn; now it's Bangladesh and Pakistan. I was there when Islamabad was under construction. Interesting fact: Islamabad is laid out in a similar fashion to Washington, DC.; for whatever reason, the planners liked the DC lay-out. If you've ever spent any time in the district and had to drive there, you will know what shortsighted planning that was.

Yes, I know many Muslims --here and there. Still correspond with friends there from my youth.

Study of the Koran was required in the school I attended.

Pakistan, at the time I was there, was right on the brink of being drug into the modern world. Ayub Kahn was President, and he was very westernized.

Radical Islam was fighting him, tooth and nail.

Unfortunately, Radical Islam won out.

For the record, my parents were great friends with the Shah of Iran. Texas was the seed of the friendship. My mother, being a Texan, and one of the Shah's son, being at that time a resident of Lubbock while he took flight training at Reese AFB (and a student at Tech), had something in common. Mother was introduced to the Shah by Ayub Kahn at the Lahore International Cattle Exposition in about 1964.

If you remember, the Shah had westernized Iran. Democracy and freedom were important to him.

We have a Lefty Lib peanut framer from Georgia to thank for the fall of that country.

So, yes. I'm more qualified to expound on Islam than many.

[Naturalized-Texan]

A couple of days ago I was talking to a couple of military veterans about these civilian killings. We all agreed that we could understand the killings because one of their buddies was just killed by a terrorist IED and the fact that those terrorists often use civilians as human shields, but we couldn't condone them. The Marines probably couldn't know whether or not those civilians were being used as human shields and decided that they would rather be safe than dead.

[Gonzo67]

The Marines probably couldn't know whether or not those civilians were being used as human shields and decided that they would rather be safe than dead.


Don't bother trying to rationalize it for him NT... It's lost on the type of people who feel that our soldiers should ALLOW themselves to be killed by a Muzzie using a civilian as a shield, rather than risk EVER harming an "innocent bystander".

Simple facts. The Muslims have taken this fight to the streets and residential districts NOT the American Soldiers.

The MUSLIMS are conducting terrorist attacks, targeting INNOCENT civilians, men, women, CHILDREN in OTHER COUNTRIES (America, England, etc..) American Soldiers are NOT conducting suicide bombings, or "terrorist attacks against women and children".

The MUSLIMS attack and BEHEAD THEIR OWN when ever one of their own even so much as speaks out against their methods. Yet America ALLOWS it's people to bash their own leadership, condemn their own troops, and berate their OWN COUNTRY.

And yet people like Borgia, That CLAIM to be such a friggin authority on how "the REAL Muslims" behave, still sit blindly by when yet ANOTHER American Soldier returns to his country in a box.

You know something Borgia... You're right, I do not know a SINGLE MUSLIM personally. But I SEE the result of the "Muslim Faithful" arriving through our Airports and ending their journey at our cemeteries.

Every time I open the paper, turn on the news, or read yet another "article" posted here, I SEE the "end result" of the"Muslim Faithful". And there's not a fukin word you can say, or a single "argument" you can make that will even BEGIN to make me think that the Muslim Religion will EVER be anything more than a vile, murdering CULT that seeks nothing less than TOTAL WORLD Domination.

So you think of me what you will, personally, I couldn't give a shit LESS what your opinion of me is. You're not that high on my list. But I do hope that you will at least consider one request. When the Muslims are knocking on your door to ask if you want t accept "Islam" into your heart or loose your head in front of your chidren... PLEASE call me, call me collect, and TELL me how wrong I was.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Borgia]

A couple of days ago I was talking to a couple of military veterans about these civilian killings. We all agreed that we could understand the killings because one of their buddies was just killed by a terrorist IED and the fact that those terrorists often use civilians as human shields, but we couldn't condone them. The Marines probably couldn't know whether or not those civilians were being used as human shields and decided that they would rather be safe than dead.

Um, isn't this pretty much what Murtha was saying? Murtha was talking about the pressures of service over there and how it can lead to bad judgements.

I don't disagree with anything you said here except that the Marines better exercise some caution before firing at possible civilians.

[Borgia]

Yes, I know many Muslims --here and there. Still correspond with friends there from my youth.
Good, then you know that many Muslims are fine upstanding citizens who have no interest in a death struggle with the west.


If you remember, the Shah had westernized Iran. Democracy and freedom were important to him.

We have a Lefty Lib peanut framer from Georgia to thank for the fall of that country.

At the risk of veering too far off the path, what did you expect Carter to do to save the Shah? It was the west's support of the SHah that caused the uprising.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Where did I defend them? Frankly, I think the Iranians are led by a feebleminded loony. Did you want me to address them? Why not ask me about it instead of making rather stupid assumptions about my frame of mind with no evidence whatsoever?

Let's back up.

YOU SAID [sarc/on] in response to Lubbock's take that maybe we should round up all muslims, force them to wear armbands and cattle car them to the nearest death camp.

I SAID [sarc/off] that the president of Iran already has recommended that very thing for Jews.

What's telling here is that you don't want to address the real issue. Islam needs no sarcasm. It requires absolutely zero sarcasm. It is itself a real working parody of violence, except there is no screen credit for Quentin Tarantino.

My question to you: Why post maudlin apologetics for a culture that promotes serial murder? It doesn't need your defense. It doesn't ask for your defensive sarcasm. And all it illustrates is your own willful ignorance, that you would defend the very culture that actively promotes judenrein on a daily basis by virtue of the very prescription that you attempted to mock. Islam actually champions it; the whole 9 yards - identifying armbands, the infidel tax, beheadings, mass murder. And yet you have willfully chosen to defend them by accusing someone else of their habitual sins.

What this means is that you are either 1) seriously ignorant 2) a foaming mouth idiot or 3) an antisemitic prick.

Choose what you defend wisely. Thus far you have made poor choices that I can only assume are moral defects of character.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Good, then you know that many Muslims are fine upstanding citizens who have no interest in a death struggle with the west.

Irrelevant.

Educate yourself. (http://www.city-journal.org/html/rev2006-06-04td.html)

[Wyatt_Junker]

It was the west's support of the SHah that caused the uprising.

I see you are the media's bitch. This is the action line you have been told.

What your brain fails to register is that Islam, culturally speaking, is highly fissionable. Put it anywhere, watch it erupt. Mr. Rogers would have had a similarly predictable result as Iran's cardboard stand-in. They want bearded assholes, period end stop. They want pricks to lead them. They don't like tits or clits, just dicks. Wifebeaters. They are ruled by psycho-sexual sociopathologic dictators. The nearest thing we have to compare to the mullah is Keak Da Sneak. Rap music is Islam except without the religious pretense. The "west's support" of the Shah didn't "cause" the mullahcracy. Mullah worship was ingrained far before Ricardo Mantobaln ever took over, but don't let that simple fact get in the way of your anti-Americanism.

[Lubbock]

It was the west's support of the Shah that caused the uprising?

Just how stuck on stupid are you?

It was militant Islam that caused the uprising.

If that old closet queen, Carter, had had the intestinal fortutude to step in and help quell the uprising, the Middle East would be a very different place.

Is there anyone who can dispute that with facts?

If Iran had been allowed to continue its march into modernity, all of the Middle East would not be the backward, terrorist-ridden hell hole it is today.

The same applies to Pakistan.

The only thing that is going to change the face of the Middle East is when Isreal finally gets off this terrorist coddling campaign its been on for a decade and decide to start standing up for herself --again.

PC has stopped Israel in her tracks. I pray for the day she gets her feet under her once again, and puts a stop to the Muslims trying to irradicate anything that isn't Islam.

[Borgia]

It was the west's support of the Shah that caused the uprising? It was militant Islam that caused the uprising.

I am well aware of who performed the uprising, my point was what fact caused those people to uprise against the Shah? People don't rebel for no reason. It is common knowledge that the reason they rebelled against teh Shah was due to the West and the Shah being too close. You will note that this is just facts, not a judgement in any way.


If that old closet queen, Carter, had had the intestinal fortutude to step in and help quell the uprising, the Middle East would be a very different place.
So you think Carter should have sent troops and aid to a foreign country to quell the rebellion? I thought we let other countries determine on their own what govt they wanted? Do you think it would be wise for Carter US armed forces into Iran when they were in the middle of political turmoil?


If Ir