Posted on 08/10/2006 8:38:11 PM PDT by PRePublic
“We are at war, and we know who the enemy is.”
If we know who the enemy are – based on intelligence, rather than racial stereotyping - we can target them specifically, but there is no place for rounding up entire communities because of the actions of a few individuals.
“I'd point out that there were no fifth column attacks on the West Coast”
You will find people on the left using the same logic to argue that it is the availability & mass ownership of hand guns that creates the death by gunshot statistics in the US. Your line of argument would endorse that point of view and a host of others, as well.
“Look into what was done to the German American Bundh sometime.”
The German American Bund was monitored and individuals were arrested, but there was not a wholesale rounding up and concentration of German Americans in camps. Whole communities were not shipped to the mid-West from the East Coast. It is not comparable and frankly a facetious suggestion. You also ignore the fact that the most highly decorated regiment of WWII was full of Japanese Americans, fighting for the United States. So much for the fifth column.
this is what they plan for U.S. all.
jews ,christians then buhdhists.
This is a collective disease of the mind.
Islam=insanity.
check this
http://www.ogrish.com/archives/three_indonesian_girls_beheaded_images_Oct_30_2005.html
More pepl must see the truth.
I would broadly agree that when fighting a war one must use bloody methods, even against your allies (Winston Churchill had the French fleet in North Africa sunk rather than let it fall into the hands of the Axis powers).
But that is not what some of the people posting here are advocating. We are not fighting a war in military terms against a clearly defined enemy. The ‘War on Terror’ is a battle of hearts & minds and cannot be won by military might alone. The Islamic world has as much of a hard time with the reality of the 21st century as a lot of people in the United States do (Creationism / Creative Design vs. science, anyone?), and it mystifies rational thinking conservatives like me, how no-one on this board seems to notice that.
What is particularly pernicious and clear from many of the posts here it that what some people are advocating is the wholesale destruction of nations because of their religion. In short, they are proposing a racial war of extermination and that cannot be allowed to stand as a proposition.
“Already the invading butchers have taken over nations, like, Thailand, Indonesia, Most of Africa, Philippines, Parts of France, Pakistan, India, Israel ,Bosnia, Croatia, China .”
Utter drivel! Clearly you have not been to most of the countries you list any time recently. If you actually went to these places and talked with the locals, as I do, you will find that the vast majority of the population would like a peaceful life with enough food and clean drinking water. They would like to get an education, greater economic opportunities, and to make decent living. Not much different from the average Westerner.
I was in Thailand in July and conditions for the average Thai were a lot better and it was safer than five years ago. The capital is safe, the islands are safe (Tsunamis not withstanding). The southern provinces neighboring Malaysia are unhappy but that it largely a product of them being less economically developed that the Northern provinces in recent years. By talking with the locals and finding areas for development in the Golden Triangle, the Thai government managed to slash opium production (hence 80% of the world’s opium comes from Afghanistan these days). If the central government took the same route in the South it would not take long to isolate the lunatics. On the other hand, if they go down the route you advocate they would have a civil war and possibly a region conflict with Malaysia.
Where in Africa are you raving about?? Certainly there some despotic regimes and extremist opponents in the North (of the Sahara), but most Africans would just like to have enough to eat. If someone is promising more food and drinkable water they will be popular. If you flood the world market with subsidized agricultural goods you will find countries whose economies are predominantly agriculture driven will slash their spending on areas like health, education and development. No wonder large chunks of the continent are fed up.
Exactly which parts of France are you thinking of? There was civil unrest in many parts but this was largely due to the fact that the unemployment rate in the non-white community runs are 20-25%, vs. an average of around 6% in the white community. France has a history of popular revolts dating back to the revolution. Look at what happened when French farmers felt their livelihoods were under threat from agricultural imports: they burnt trucks full of English lamb. When the French government banned alcohol sales are freeway services areas, truckers blockaded the road network.
The Philippines has been a mess since the Spanish arrived there and no one locally thinks the government a trustworthy arbiter in the inter-island disputes. Mostly, it comes down to a lack of opportunity and government funding for development excluding minority races (as a Philipino I talked with explained).
Pakistan has been a mess since the English left – no make that BEFORE the English arrived!! (Wiziristan is a law unto itself). But again, most Pakistanis would like to be able to make a living and do more than subsist off the land. They don’t like their corrupt government, which does little or nothing for them but taxes them to pay for yet more soldiers who then come around shooting them or confiscating their opium crops (largely grown because the soil is so depleted and resources that might have been used to provide fertilizers, etc, are spent by their ‘defence’ ministry and the SIS (Secret Intelligence Service) – Osama’s mates. The Pakistan government could learn a thing or two from the Thais.
India has one of the most stable democracies in the world. Bombs go off from time to time, but Indian’s are not rushing to vote for the Hindu-nationalist VJP because one or two loonies think they will arrive in Paradise on Friday by blowing themselves up on Thursday. They know that the alternative is a war with Pakistan, which would be ruinously expensive in lives and funds that India needs to develop its infrastructure. Like many Americans, Indians sees themselves as succeeding despite their government.
Bosnia – oh Bosnia! It would take too long to run through that one, but I would suggest that the worst of Bosnia was in the early 90s and the worst of it was by Serbs. The biggest problem in Bosnia is Serbian nationalism and has been since the late 19th century. As for Croatia, have you ever been there???
And finally: China. China has problems, sure. But most of those would be solved by letting peasants own their own land, cleaning up the environment (I have the “I choked on the Shanghai smog!” t-shirt, thanks for asking!) There are Muslim separatists in some Western provinces, but given the Chinese government’s approach to all religions and racial minorities, that is hardly surprising.
I went to a local Messianic Jewish service a few weeks ago, a couple had just come back from Israel and were showing slides of their trip. People were living life as normal. I saw a couple of weddings, people eating dinner out, kids playing.... you wouldn't have known they were in the middle of a war. Israel loves life that's one of the reasons they will not be defeated.
Let see, in your eyes "not having missiles hitting your houses" was not an objective and "standing there while your family and neighbors are killed by shelling and people with bombs strapped around there waist" was peace, but when you go kill the people with the bombs before they come to you it turns into violence.
I don't think you exhibit a thought process that I can reason with.
You cannot reason with me and yet you insist on replying?
I was pointing out that violence begets violence and that it is cyclical. The view from the other side of the fence looks exactly the same (i.e., there are plenty of missle damaged houses in Gaza and Lebonnon, as well as Haifa and Northern Israel, etc).
If you cannot see what your encourages support for your enemies you will never understand how to undermine that support. Bombing them back into the stone age clearly isn't working.
You can call it 'justifiable homocide' if you like, but's still murder, for all the neutral language.
But you have not shown as I pointed out, (and cannot show because the empirical evidence contradicts it) that passivity reduces violence. Standing peacefully in the face of violent assault results in injury or death, not tranquility.
Your apparent refusal to comprehend this leads me to question your intellectual capacity - long quotes from lengthy dissertations (which are similarly disconnected from reality) not withstanding.
So by all means show me where 6 months of passivity on the part of Israel has ever resulted in 6 months of Israelis not being killed by Mohammedans. You may look for any period from 1948 to present. That's 58 years. Demonstrate the validity of your argument. If such validity exists.
Here's a clue. People are advocating the wholesale destruction of nations because the nations in question want to kill people in other nations. Whether the reason for this desire is or is not a religious one is irrelevant. If you don't understand this, well take comfort in your ability to read - even though understanding basic survival instinct is beyond you.
We haven't even started "bombing them back into the stone age", yet. Of course, they're not far advanced from stone age peoples. Flintstone nazis.
Hey......Digga.......phoenix is right and YOU miss the point, pal.
It was the drooling, murderous, bloodthirsty Muslims who did all the 'redesignating' of their OWN people, sport. Deal with it, and mind the carpet while your heart bleeds all over. I find it annoying as hell.
The inability of Israel to secure its border or end suicide bombings and rocket attacks in the 58 years since its foundation would suggest that your methods have not worked, either.
As for "long quotes from lengthy disertations" - when I quote I use quotation marks. I could have left my response at "utter drivel. Have you ever been to these places?" but if that is the level of debate then its a sad day.
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.