Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Next, A War Against the Drag Bunt?
las Vegas Review-Journal ^ | 20 Nov 05 | Vin Suprynowicz

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 ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 11/20/2005 1:41:07 PM PST by rellimpank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Appears to be missing Barf alert.


2 posted on 11/20/2005 1:44:20 PM PST by demitall (Going to wash out my mouth now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Paid to write stupid stuff.


3 posted on 11/20/2005 1:45:52 PM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

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.


4 posted on 11/20/2005 1:49:37 PM PST by Cyclopean Squid (Born to sing the Blues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly

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?


5 posted on 11/20/2005 1:51:13 PM PST by tuff_schlitz (Peace through superior firepower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
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...

Mewling Muslims. That's good. Descriptive and alliterative.

Mewl

intr.v. mewled, mewl·ing, mewls

To cry weakly; whimper.

6 posted on 11/20/2005 1:52:23 PM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.


7 posted on 11/20/2005 1:52:51 PM PST by LegendHasIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: demitall
Appears to be missing Barf alert.

You appear to be missing reading the article before posting.

8 posted on 11/20/2005 1:54:49 PM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
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.

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.

9 posted on 11/20/2005 2:01:55 PM PST by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch
You appear to be missing reading the article before posting.

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.

10 posted on 11/20/2005 2:02:27 PM PST by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
"War on Terror" is a stupid misnomer. Terrorism is a tactic. It's like declaring war on attacking from the flanks. "War on Terrorists" would have actually made some sense. Like Ari's ill-fated attempt to change "Suicide Bomber" to "Homicide Bomber." Although some here desperately cling to every WH talking point, even if the WH itself gives up on it, ALL bombers are "Homicide Bombers." "Suicide Bomber" indicates that someone was willing to "martyr" themselves in the process.
11 posted on 11/20/2005 2:03:25 PM PST by LanaTurnerOverdrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
People really should read this article. The point has been made before, but needs to be made again, and V.S. makes it well.

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.

12 posted on 11/20/2005 2:03:34 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LegendHasIt
--and IMHO, in Iraq we are going to de facto end up with what Suprynowicz suggested about a year ago--a"Kurdistan", a "Sunni-stan" and a "Shia-stan" in one form or another. Time will tell---
13 posted on 11/20/2005 2:05:17 PM PST by rellimpank (urbanites don' t understand the cultural deprivation of not being raised on a farm:NRABenefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

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.


14 posted on 11/20/2005 2:08:26 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
..."The answer is to leave them alone behind really big fences, allowing those who wish to live in freedom to immigrate so long... as they embrace the separation of church and state..." Vin Suprynowicz

Vin isn't the sharpest pencil in the drawer, is he? Anybody who writes this has apparently forgot that Mohammed Atta al-Sayad and friends were immigrants. The answer is to make the general populations that spawn and support butchers, like Atta, very reluctant to do so.
15 posted on 11/20/2005 2:09:13 PM PST by PerConPat (A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground.-- Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank
"The answer is to leave them alone behind really big fences,..."

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.

16 posted on 11/20/2005 2:11:37 PM PST by DJ Taylor (Once again our country is at war, and once again the Democrats have sided with our enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly
Paid to write stupid stuff.

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".

17 posted on 11/20/2005 2:11:43 PM PST by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

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.


18 posted on 11/20/2005 2:38:43 PM PST by DoughtyOne (MSM: Public support for war waining. 403/3 House vote against pullout vaporizes another lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

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.


19 posted on 11/20/2005 3:01:54 PM PST by BigBobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

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.


20 posted on 11/20/2005 3:01:56 PM PST by Left2Right ("Democracy isn't perfect, but other governments are so much worse")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson