Radical Islam is ALWAYS on the wrong side and story after story proves that they are evil and the entire free world should band together to stop them.
You have this story:
Negev school hit by rocket
and then the stories of terrorists threatening to create bloodshed in France because they are not happy with who was elected?
Liberals, don't you have a problem with this?
Why is it this country and our President that you are always protesting?
Why are you afraid to make them mad?
Why do you think we can talk and reason with them?
We have two enemies: terrorists and the people who defend them, make sure they are treated fairly, and try and make us run away and let them win.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Unlike liberals think, one side can always be wrong
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
Game,
Here's another article. Here a Palestinian with Doctors Without Borders decided to be a terrorist and got caught.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/
Satellite?pagename=JPost%
2FJPArticle%
2FShowFull&cid=1178708623115
I broke up the url with line feeds so that will all be there. I know the usual suspects will defend people like this. I wonder why they hate civilization so?
Game
Your definition of our “two enemies” is excellent!
Well, as Ron Paul argued, the anti-war movement thinks Muslim violence is the measure of Western guilt. "Blowback" is how they describe it, which is fancy talk stating the events of 911 were justified revenge.
Islamic Supremacists have several revolutionary goals-- 1) bring back the Caliphate 2) impose Sharia law everywhere 3) exterminate the Jew. They see the carnage in Kashmir, in Sudan, in Thailand, in Iraq, like the attacks in Bali, Algiers, Madrid, Washington D.C., and so forth, as fronts in a global struggle.
Socialists and Libertarians each have their own specific delusions about this. Socialists think when people shout "God is Greatest!" in the suburbs of Paris, fly airplanes into skyscrapers in New York City, or strap bombs to their children to kill the Jew in Israel, they are really fighting for universal healthcare access, school tuition, retirement benefits, and so forth.
A rational human being should be able to discern this is religious fanaticism.
Libertarians are a bit different. They think one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, forgetting that to be a freedom fighter, you have to fight for freedom like George Washington, instead of Communism like Lenin or Sharia like Osama bin Laden. Libertarians ask how would we like it if people used coercion against us, without examining the context in which it is used. They think if we turn the other cheek, then the Hitlers, Hirohitos, and Mussolinis of the world will leave everyone alone.
The events of Pearl Harbor and 911 should decisively refute the Libertarian theory, but moral equivalence is widely taught in Western countries, and it is difficult to get people to examine events for what they are.
game--
"Why do you think we can talk and reason with them?"
It isn't just liberals. Bush's State Department and Republicans like Brownback seem to think it is a good idea to work with Hitlers lately also.
We definitely need someone like Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson in the White House next election, otherwise we risk being hunted down in our own cities by these zealots.
Jason, game. What is Rudy's strategy for victory against terrorists? What should his strategy be? What's the solution?
Jim--
I'm always glad to help.
The war against militant Islam is very much like the Cold War, and requires similar solutions-- supporting friendly governments, not letting radicals topple democracies, assassinating and/or overthrowing dangerous tyrants, and never letting revolutionary forces topple a progressive government like Jimmy Carter did in 1979.
This is not a neocon strategy. As Harry Truman put it,
"It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or outside pressures."
JFK stated,
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
And FDR, unlike today's Democrats, learned from the attack on our country and proclaimed,
"We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations, far away."
There is a one major difference between the threat of socialism and the threat of Islamism. The former were atheist do-gooders that created plans for the common good that ended up getting millions of people killed and/or gulaged. In contrast, the Jihadists are religious, fanatic, and suicidal. When one only listens to the Will of God, negotiation and diplomacy are futile.
With the Democrats and many of the Republicans -- they blame America first. They think if we pull out of Iraq, put the Gitmo terrorists back into circulation, kill the Patriot Act, let Iran have the nukes for their holocaust, abandon Israel, dismantle our military, and let China and Russia have a veto over our foreign policy, everything will work out for the best with America humble and weak.
To be polite about this, I simply do not think this alternative strategy advocated by Brownback, Obama, Paul, Edwards, Hagel, Clinton and so forth is going to work. The aggressive approach advocated by people like Thompson or a Giuliani is what will allow America to maintain its security commitments.
Iran under the Shah was a progressive government? What history books are you reading?
The only strategy I read in your response is be aggressive. That's pretty damn vague. That's not a strategy at all. An then your usual false accusation of what dems would do is just the usual blah-blah-blah.
What's the strategy?
Jim--
Again, I spelled the strategy out in the post above.
Perhaps you're confused about the objective -- a liberal and progressive world where people can live in freedom, or at least peacefully coexist. In contrast, the international left embraces the reactionary ideal that theocrats and dictators should retain the monopoly on violence unmolested, lest the West become "just as bad."
A proper strategy, which is not the objective, and not a tactic, will stop jihad by the same tactics used during the Cold War, as I mentioned in the first paragraph in my last response. The only difference is the nuclear issue, which, combined with the apocalyptic cult of suicide and martyrdom, requires using preemptive means, as opposed to basic containment.
Tactics can be debated, but it makes no sense to do this when so many oppose the strategy, and, I fear to say, the objective.
As for what the Democrats plan to do, I'm not making that up. They oppose airstrikes against Iran, they think the Al-Aqsa Martyr brigades in Palestine can be a 'partner in peace', they want to close Gitmo, they want to pull America out of Iraq -- if you don't know the positions your party is advocating -- again, I can be of great service.
that was way too much fact and common sense, and actual success for a liberal mind
Jason, most of the US senior military opposes opposes air strikes against Iran. Those liberal Democrat bastards!
I know the difference between objectives, tactics, and strategy.
You still have not presented a strategy. You allude to a Cold War strategy but then say it doesn't really apply. And other than Viet Nam (that great success) and the Korean conflict (from which Eisenhower "cut and run"), I don't remember the US bombing the Soviets. Or did I miss it?
Be specific. What is the strategy for victory in the war against terrorists? Is your strategy to bomb Iran? What is it?
Jim--
Again, containment is a strategy. The only difference the nuclear issue, which requires less defensive tactics.
Secondly, mutually assured destruction works with atheist do-gooders. It is a mistake to think it will work with apocalyptic religious fanatics.
Defending South Korea is among one of the most noble tasks the American military performed in the 20th century. I'm sad to see you don't see things that way.
It sounds like your liberal compassion doesn't extend to the 2,500,000 people who were killed in Indochina after the Democrat Congress cut the funding and let the commie dominoes fall.
You are not answering my question. I did not opine on the nobility of the Korean war. Further, I did not opine about the righteousness of the Viet Nam war. Do you think it was a success? "Let the commie dominoes fall?" Which dominoes would those be? Laos? Cambodia? Burma?
I don't know of anybody who would suggest the MAD is a viable strategy against terrorists, do you?
How will you implement a strategy of containment against terrorists?
I still don't see a strategy.
Jim--
Iran is a case where most Democrats feel MAD is applicable. They think having France mad at us is worse than, let us say, seeing the infidels in San Francisco or Los Angeles incinerated.
Containment is a strategy. How does one execute it?
1) Don't let the jihadists topple democratic governments. That includes the New Afghanistan and Iraq.
2) Support our friends when democracy is impossible. That means keeping Musharraf, Mubarak, Saudi princes and so forth on our side.
3) Do whatever it takes to keep nukes out of the hands of deranged fanatics.
These are all mutually reinforcing. Stab Iraq in the back, for example, and Egypt and Pakistan no longer see America as a strong, reliable ally. They will see no reason to stick their necks out for us.
Now, let us look at the consequences of "peace." In addition to Laos, Cambodia, Burma, and South Vietnam, in the 1970s the Communists also extended their tentacles to Yemen, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan, and initially Persia before the atheists were chopped off the revolutionary salami. This was an utterly pathetic performance by America after limiting the Communist advances in the previous two decades to pretty much Cuba.
And leftists have the nerve to complain we didn't let them have Chile.
After a decade of weakness, it took Ronald Reagan to start fighting back on many of these theaters, from Nicaragua to the Persian Gulf. And if GW weren't around, we'd be having talks today with Mullah Omar and Saddam Hussein.
So we support democracy as long as it isn't "leftist".
"Jason, most of the US senior military opposes opposes air strikes against Iran."
And the poll you're citing can be reviewed where?
"So we support democracy as long as it isn't "leftist"."
Sounds good to me.
Here.
"Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders."
See also Adm. Fallon of CENTCOM.
"Sounds good to me." So you are a hypocrite?
Jim--
With Gates and Pace, it would be best to see the sentences in context to see how they are playing their cards. But I'll suppose for the sake of argument that Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condaleeza Rice all oppose an attack on Iran. That would be a bipartisan consensus on the issue, which quite possibly may be the case now.
The question becomes -- just because there is consensus, does that mean the consensus is correct?
Sometimes the consensus can be fatally wrong, as what happened when people in the 1930s refused to see the starry-eyed progressives in Germany trying to perfect the human race as the threat they were.
The argument for airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities is clear. If Ahmadinejad means what he says, then he will willingly destroy Los Angeles, Tel Aviv, London and so forth to bring about the return of the 12th Imam.
In the unlikely event Ahmadinejad is a cynical power-monger, we're not much better off-- terrorists will be able to stage attacks like 911 on a regular basis with the benefit of a nuclear umbrella. Wow. That's the future I want to live in. /s
There is a reason why politicians like Obama are saying under no circumstances will Iran have a nuclear weapon. Though whether he thinks words alone will stop them will become clear as the campaign progresses.
Jason, do you believe that Ahmedinejad has unaccountable power in Iran?
Jim,
Thanks for the response. Was the poll given to three people? Then you win. And Mahmoud is accountable to the mullahs and ayatollahs. Feel better now? I don't.
Post a Comment