It Is Inevitable

5-13-04 | Veritas_est (Truth Is)

[Veritas_est]

It Is Inevitable By Veritas_est (Truth Is)

It is clear, even today, that Iraq had, and probably still has, well hidden biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. Notwithstanding this fact, fanatical, Muslim, "terrorists are weapons of mass destruction" (This is a Tag Line for someone here on FR. Would someone please give credit?) President G. W. Bush, like his father before him, started out on the right track. Unfortunately, like his father before him, he slowed down, backed off, and stopped before the job was completed. Don't get me wrong. I am a Bush supporter. I just want to see him finish the job. We have now been put on the defensive. There are reasons behind this too, but that is a topic for later discourse.

Until we learn the thinking of the fanatical, Muslim, terrorists we are destined to be killed by them. It is inevitable. They see our humane treatment of our sworn enemies as weakness. This perceived weakness encourages them to increase their terrorism, and to become even more vicious. While I don't advocate becoming like them, I feel it is time to stop apologizing for our actions. It is time to relocate, by scattering, all of the citizens of Fallujah across whatever nations they are from, and then to literally level the city. Then we should shut down the borders of Iraq (While we are at it we might try that here also.) to anyone wanting to enter. Then we should hunt down and kill every person in Iraq who is involved in killing Americans and Iraqi citizens who are trying to establish a free society.

If we don't take a heavy hand with terrorists we will reap a whirlwind of terrorism like we have never seen before. This nation could be completely destroyed, and in fact probably will be, unless we fight this war, which was declared against us long ago, and fight it to win. Is our destruction inevitable?

There can be no appeasement with Muslim terrorists. They only recognize two kinds of peace. The first is that gained by dying while fighting (murdering and mutilating unbelievers) in a great jihad. The second is the forced adherence to the Koran of every citizen of the world, by killing everyone who opposes their fanatical doctrines. Can you say "Islamerica"? (Thanks to FReeper "Broker" for coinage of this new word.) Use it whenever you rant about fanatical Muslims.

Also, unless we learn the thinking, and goals, of the international elitists, and deal with them as the criminals they are, we are destined to be controlled by them, and eventually destroyed by them. It is inevitable.

Those, in our once great nation, who are attacking our President while we are at war, are unpatriotic at best, and traitors at worst. Their main goal is the globalization of America. They would rather see this nation totally destroyed, than for it to remain a sovereign nation, independent of the rules of the international elitists. They are perfectly willing to let the jihadists bring us to our knees so that they can then compassionately lead us into the benevolent New World Order. Then they, as an international community, will be free to also destroy the jihadists, and all other extremists (feminazis, homosexuals, drug dealers, pornographers etc.) they used to destroy us. I believe this too is inevitable.

What you probably didn't realize is that the plan is in writing, available, and has been being implemented in a slow but certain fashion for a very long time. It is happening slowly, but surely. It will happen. It is inevitable. It's completion is dependent only on God's timetable. The fact that "it is written" does not lessen the culpability of the perpetrators. It does not excuse us if we refuse to withstand this evil.

Would you like to have faces of these lying, two faced critics? Would you like to know exactly who I am referring to, and read their contradictions in their own words? Click on this link for a few of them.

However, you should also know that, these are really only pawns in the hands of the true wielders of power in the world of darkness. This is also a subject for future discourse.

[Veritas_est]

The floor is open. Have at it.

[Veritas_est]

Ooops. I didn't make the link clickable. Can that be fixed?

[Graybeard58]

like his father before him, he slowed down, backed off, and stopped before the job was completed.

Bush #1 followed the U.N. mandate and drove Saadam from Kuwait....So much for U.N. mandates.<p.

[katz]

First. No I cannot correct clicks.

Second. We must win this war. I read on Drudge today that if asked, we will leave.

OK. Leave with a deal. If you guys start any WMD or terrorists attacks, we will return with a vengeance! We will leave if your behave.

[jwpjr]

If memory serves me, it was never our intention to invade Iraq as part of the 1991 Gulf war to free Kuwait. It was not a failure on our part, or the part of the President to follow through, but rather the actual plan to leave Iraq more or less intact. We ended that conflict the way we agreed we would and for that we have been blamed ever since. I used to think my Dad was being overly pessimistic when he would say 'no good deed ever goes unpunished.' In the years since my youth I've seen the truth of that statement over and over. We said what we intended to do, we did what we intended to do and then we came home, having kept our word. Given our 'druthers we would have pushed on into Iraq and finished off Saddam's regime, but we could never have gotten UN approval for such a plan, so we settled for the most we could get. We did exactly what we said we would do and our reward for keeping our word has been that we've been accused of 'leaving Saddam in power' ever since. As always, you pay a higher price for something when you pay for it over time. We are still paying the price for the world's (actually the UN's) appeasement in 1991. There would be no question of WMD's had we deposed Saddam 13 years ago. How much success would the execution of a search warrant enjoy if the occupants of the premises to be searched were given six months notice of the search? The lesson to be learned from this whole experience of depending on the UN to sanction our national security is that if you want something done you would best do it yourself!

[4CJ]

A search has "Cricket" as the Freeper with the tagline in question (since changed).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1127112/posts?page=15

[Veritas_est]

"terrorists are weapons of mass destruction" (This is a Tag Line for someone here on FR. Would someone please give credit?)"

OK. This Tag Line belongs to "cricket". Thanks to "4ConservativeJustices" for setting the record straight

[Just Lori]

Is our destruction inevitable?


It IS, if we let the left liberal scum run the show!

[ladyinred]

While I agree it appears we have slowed down, I can't really blame the President as much as I can blame the leftists with their propaganda arm, the media. This nation has to have the will to go after this, and they have seen to it that that will is waning daily. If Bush can't get reelected, there will be no war on terror, and he is aware of that. You must realize that without the backing of the citizen's, he can't go forward as aggressively as he may wish to.

The blame belongs on the heads of the democrats who care more for personal power than they do about this nation. Make no mistake about that. It doesn't help if we start saying these things too. That will just put us all back even further. Do I agree we need to get more aggressive? Yes. Do I think the President can right now? Not really, not without the backing of Congress and the American people. Put the blame where it belongs, or we will be in worse jeopardy IMHO.

[ladyinred]

BTW: I should have mentioned that this is one heck of a good job of writing you have done here.

[wku man]

Terrorists are not weapons of mass destruction, neither was Saddam. They are evil, inhuman, vile, murdering, hate-filled enemies of all that is good, but they most definitely are not weapons. It does us no good to exaggerate, it only gives our CommieLibs political enemies the opportunity to accuse us of "right-wing spin".

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[Veritas_est]

Lady,
You and I agree mostly I think. I certainly agree that the libs are causing the support for the war effort to wane. However, I fear that unless "W" becomes more aggressive he will not be reelected. His strongest support was when he was being the most aggressive. It doesn't necessarily have to be against Iraq, but it does need to be against fanatical Muslims.

[GB]

Here is the problem. You could silence the leftists and the media, but IMHO the American public in the year 2004 would still not have the collective stomach to do what needs to be done, how it needs to be done. I know the drumbeat from the media and libs isn't helping things, I'd be naive to say anything else, but again, IMHO, I think it's going to be hard to make the American public see this as what it is, World War III, and I think it's going to be hard to make them accept the kind of bloodshed we're going to have to dish out to win it, because I think too many people's only knowledge of war these days is from movies and history books and I think they are too gunshy when it comes to the subject of casualties, both for us and who we're fighting. IMHO, we could not get away with a Dresden bombing or something like Curtis LeMay's B-29s incinerating Tokyo and deliberately targeting civilian areas today, the American people would be repulsed.

I guess the question is, how do you change that with a populace that has no frame of reference for total commitment to a war, being that the WWII generation is dying out in triple figures every day?

[Just Lori]

Democrats have no recollection of anything they said when 9/11 was fresh. Their only goal is to unseat W. They care nothing of the country and the people therein. They are very very low, indeed. I will never forget!

[Veritas_est]

"Terrorists are not weapons of mass destruction, neither was Saddam. They are evil, inhuman, vile, murdering, hate-filled enemies of all that is good, but they most definitely are not weapons."

Well, my friend, you are certainly right in your adjective filled assessment of the enemy. However, when you strap a big enough bomb on the "evil, inhuman, vile, murdering, hate-filled enemies of all that is good", he becomes a weapon of mass destruction. Also if you take enough of them, and there are certainly a lot, with small bombs strapped to them, collectively they become a WMD.

Exaggeration? I don't think so. Ask the families of the victims of 9-11. I'd bet they think of them as WMDs.

[wku man]

Okay, we're arguing semantics here, but in none of the cases you mentioned were/are the terrorists the weapons. The bombs and the planes are/were the weapons. A weapon is an inanimate object, which is used by a human to cause destruction, death, injury, whatever. Just because it sounds cool to call terrorists, Saddam, whoever a "weapon of mass destruction", doesn't change the fact that weapons are things, not people. Exaggeration? Yes.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[Jeff Gordon]

I have recently come to the conclusion that an all out war between the USA and Arabia is inevitable. The average Arab just does not have to mental ability to comprehend what we know as peace and justice. I do not know if it genetic or cultural but their pathological outlook on human relations runs very deep in their souls.

I doubt if their attitudes can be changed any more than Japan's xenophobic attitudes can be change. We can, however, bring their antisocial attitudes under control just as we have the Japanese Xenophobia and the German's militarism. We can and we must.

[Veritas_est]

Truce. It ain't worth the time to argue about it.

[Veritas_est]

"I have recently come to the conclusion that an all out war between the USA and Arabia is inevitable."

I fear your are correct. With the liberal bias of our main stream media, it will be next to impossible to get the man in the street to agree to that kind of war before it is everlastingly too late.

That is the reason I added this little paragraph above, "If we don't take a heavy hand with terrorists we will reap a whirlwind of terrorism like we have never seen before. This nation could be completely destroyed, and in fact probably will be, unless we fight this war, which was declared against us long ago, and fight it to win. Is our destruction inevitable?"

[wku man]

Don't argue with me, argue with Webster:

weapon: n 1) an instrument of offensive or defensive combat : something to fight with 2) : a means of contending against another.

Dang it, as Rush has always said, words mean things. The CommieLibs use our spin against us, just as we use theirs against them. Don't give them the opportunity.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!