Posted on 11/20/2005 1:41:06 PM PST by rellimpank
VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: What next, a 'War Against the Drag Bunt'?
It's widely asserted we're fighting a "war on terror." But that's absurd.
Terror is a tactic -- an attempt to undermine the morale of a much stronger foe, whom the "terrorists" know they cannot defeat in traditional battle.
Advertisement
When we sent John Paul Jones to burn the shipping (and steal some silverware) in the English port of Whitehaven during the American Revolution, that was an attempt at terrorism -- engaging English non-combatants (who had little if any say in their King's colonial wars) on the home front in an attempt to convince the British Parliament that this seemingly remote and distant war was not a good idea, when we knew darned well our fledgling Navy wouldn't have stood a chance in a fleet action against the Royal Navy.
(Excerpt) Read more at reviewjournal.com ...
Appears to be missing Barf alert.
Paid to write stupid stuff.
The drag bunt is not the enemy. It is our misunderstood ally. It is the DH rule that must be wiped off the face of the Earth! I'd be all for a War on the Designated Hitter.
John Paul Jones disrupting British shipping during the revolution... And how does this equate to killing innocent women and children at weddings? How does this equate to intentionally blowing up civilians and non-combatants especially if they are : Christian, Jewish, Americans, "colloaborators," the police in your own newly-liberated-and-made-democratic country, or just anyone who may be around?
This defies all logic. But, then again, who are we talking about?
Mewling Muslims. That's good. Descriptive and alliterative.
intr.v. mewled, mewl·ing, mewls
To cry weakly; whimper.
No, Vin Suprynowicz isn't a bad guy OR stupid.
Did you read the article or just the headline?
He is just trying to make a valid point, perhaps in a less than Steynish way.
You appear to be missing reading the article before posting.
Pretty accurate description except the part about their homelands. They are already spreading their evil into Europe and non muslim parts of Asia.
I would also take exception to describing the actions of the Colonial Navy to terrorism. Raiding an enemy coast under the flag of your nation is not terrorism. Dressing in civilian clothes plus a belt of explosives to blow up wedding, buses and churches is.
The original poster should have included a more relevant exerpt, because the part that was posted can be summed up: John Paul Jones = Osama Bin Ladin.
Why all this misdirection? Is it all so we can avoid confronting the simple but politically incorrect act of naming our real enemy?
We're at war with a considerable bunch of radical, fundamentalist Middle Eastern Islamic men who unfortunately draw comfort and support from a much larger mass of mewling Muslims.
His point is that "War on terror" is confusing and meaningless. It's not a war on terror, its a war on terrorist Muslim men. Maybe even a war against Islam, to put it even more frankly, which private Americans are allowed to do even if politicians aren't.
What a damnedable idiot. Destroying a sailing fleet is a military objective, just like bombing railways, oil refineries, and factories. John Paul Jones' intent was not to terrorize the people of England; it was to disrupt the war economy.
Yes, the solution to our problem with Muslims is to leave them alone behind really big fences. Of course these places behind fences are called concentration camps, and to leave them alone means not paying them for their oil but taking it instead.
But not for the petro dollars we give to the Muslim world, Muslim terrorists could not afford to come to our shores and make trouble for us, but would be forced to remain in their desert hovels abusing their women, loving their live stock and worshiping a God who has more in common with the Satan as found in the Old Testament than he does with the Father of Jesus.
Is this the stupid part?
"We're at war with a bunch of wild-eyed Middle Eastern Mohammedans who hope to expel any remainder of post-15th-century cultural progress from their homelands, the better to lead their people back to a vicious 14th-century religious tyranny, complete with the stoning to death or beheading of rape victims, Christian missionaries and any woman who goes out in public with her forearms exposed".
Yes, bending over backwards to call our founding fathers terrorists, instead of admitting what the likes of Al-Zarkowi and company are up to, is what some think passes for productive commentary. I just consider it propaganda on behalf of Zarkowi.
What would this writer have us to do, congratulate Zarkowi on an honorable fight, the turn tail and run for the exits?
Would this resolve our dilema, what will the terrorists hit in the U.S. next? Of course no.
The terrorists must be resoundly defeated. You do that by making damned sure the Iraqi government remains stable. You do not do it by running for the exits.
Terrorists can continue to carry out their butchering ways. They will still have been defeated in their attempt to block a republic taking shape in their midst.
And as time goes by, they will tire and become a waste of time, when the U.S. can't be flogged by the MSM any longer.
Course lets think about that too. When we pull out, won't the MSM call the Iraqi government a puppet government, or an installed government or something to that effect? Why of course. They will never term Iraq a victory for freedom.
When CarVILE said this is war, he wasn't kidding. His party has joined the likes of Zarkowi and ANSWER. They have melted down and have no way back.
Well, he might have a good point but I could not get past the John Paul Jones shipping raids = terrorism.
I suppose General Washington was a terrorist because he attacked the enemy in their barracks on Christmas Eve.
Definitely need to read the entire article!
"We're at war with a bunch of wild-eyed Middle Eastern Mohammedans"
Sounds about right to me...
"They're nuts, but there are a lot of them."
Anyone want to disagree with that?
"The answer is to leave them alone behind really big fences"
Or at least build one. It's about time to build a really, really BIG fence on our southern border and get serious about defneding it.
"Then we could and should have a sensible debate in Congress"
So he's off the mark there...
"For instance, the Constitution still allows the equipping of private warships under "letters of marque" to make war on selected foreign enemies -- just like John Paul Jones."
I like the "Letters of Marque" part. Probably never happen, though.
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.