Posted on 09/27/2012 8:52:38 AM PDT by Little Ray
In any case, how many Moslems would be left the "Day After" the "Perfect Day" when killing people because they are Moslem becomes a really good idea? (Of course, Obama will side with the Moslems...)
Even if Muslim, how can you say killing a 6 or 7yo is a really good idea?
One of the worst incidents occured when some 200+ wives and children of a British garrison (the troops were in the field pursuing the rebels) were rounded up in either a church or a schoolhouse, and then hacked to death
So, May 10?
Article appears to be a good candidate for a “cwiiping.”
Well, you haven't been paying attention, Muslims have been saying this and acting on it as policy toward Israel since, let's see, 1948....
From the article:
“The time may come when, like Israel, we need armed riders on every school bus and armed guards in every school and every day-care center. And the only way that we can do so is, like Israel, to depend on armed citizens and armed teachers to protect their children.
The millions of Americans who are buying guns are not foolish. I would submit that they are doing the one thing that individual citizens can do, and that is to arm themselves.
This is America. When faced with a threat, we don’t take away rights; we give you more rights! But with rights come responsibilities. We give you the right to purchase and carry weapons, and you have the responsibility to train with these weapons!”
Even if Muslim, how can you say killing a 6 or 7yo is a really good idea?
///
i don’t think that is anyone’s first choice.
but, if i must chose between that,
or my children becoming Muslim,
in a world ruled by such evil...
-
Ivan Sirko understood the reality.
and so did the Israelites in the Old Testament.
-
Islam HAS declared war on us. THEIR words.
and Islam cannot be reformed.
(you cannot alter the actual words of God...)
so what options remain?
eventually, Islam will be extinguished,
or will rule the world.
-
They came very close at the Gates of Vienna.
if they had succeeded there,
Europe and America would be Muslim today.
Muzzies like using human shields. And they wouldn’t be sparing your kids. So decide for yourself.
The Marines practice Martial Arts. The Army goes for two mile runs. The Marines are making warriors. The Army is making.....runners. Patton talked about teamwork. Cross country running builds....individualism. The LAW OF EFFECT teaches us that we will receive more of the behavior that is rewarded. The Army rewards runners and then wonders why they have so many poor leaders who are only out for themselves. The Unintended Consequences of the Army’s focus on running has been the poor leadership that has meant eleven years of fighting in Afghanistan with no victory. I really don’t give a damn how fast you can run a mile and a half or two miles. Can you build a unit, a team, that can fight, win and survive? It’s time we started rewarding the warriors and the football players. Let the cross country runners go wear out their shoes in a park.
Like burning out a hornet's nest. You get not only the adults but the eggs that would become the next generation.
I’m just trying to image the Federales allowing this.
More likely they’d declare an even higher “State of Emergency” and try to disarm EVERYONE (but the Moslems and criminals, of course...).
So the same should be done back?
good post. made me read Ester.
I thought that since the services are having to do so much police work and handling of civilians and individuals, that both the Army and Marines were teaching hand to hand again, something that often disappears in other type wars, like Vietnam, where they wanted you to kill the enemy, not grapple with him.
I know they both run.
My favorite Dave Grossman quote is:
“If you are legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside your front door without it, you have chosen to be a sheep [rather than a sheepdog].” Words I remember every time I step out my front door.
You are probably referencing the Cawnpore massacre. You're not particularly accurate in your description, though.
The garrison at Cawnpore stood a siege for about three weeks, and then surrendered on guarantee of safe passage. The safe passage was violated and almost all the men killed in the massacre.
About 200 women and children were taken prisoner and held for about two weeks. As the British forces closed in, it was decided to kill them all. Nobody is still very clear on exactly who was responsible for this decision.
One theory is that it was ordered in reprisal for the atrocities being committed (quite genuine) by the relieving British forces advancing on Cawnpore.
The rebel soldiers almost all refused to kill the women and kids, despite being threatened with death themselves.
The "lady" in charge of the prison then hired butchers from the bazaar, who chopped the women and kids into pieces and threw them down a well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Cawnpore
To them it’s not just A good idea, it’s THE idea.
That’s true, moral terror. It cripples the mind like nothing else.
See: Beslan.
A wildly inaccurate summation of the Mutiny.
For one thing, a great many British survivors owed their lives to the help, often at risk of their own lives, of Indian servants and even strangers.
The notion that ALL Indians were involved is just untrue. It was probably a rather small minority of the population. If all Indians, ore even a majority, had been involved it is likely every Brit in India would have been killed.
The Company at the time had three armies. The Mutiny among soldiers was limited almost entirely to the Bengal Army.
Most of India was still ruled by native princes, allied, sometime involuntarily, with the British. Most of them stayed loyal or at least neutral. Only a few joined the revolt.
Entire native peoples, notably the Sikhs, who the British had only recently conquered and the Gurkhas, stayed entirely loyal. The British could not have defeated the sepoys without their enthusiastic assistance.
Horrible atrocities were indeed committed by both sides, though the number of Indians murdered by the Brits is probably a large multiple (20x, 50x, 100x, who knows?) of the Brits murdered by Indians. This is largely because there just weren't that many Brits in India at the time, while there were lots and lots of Indians available for slaughter.
The point is that while these atrocities happened, the true nature of events bears little semblance to this definition of a "Perfect Day."
Actually, I'd like to see some documentation for these particular claims. If they happened at all, they were extremely rare, certainly not the norm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.