Posted on 08/08/2007 5:33:29 AM PDT by expatguy
Ping to # 48.
An attractive option, going after AQ in Pakistan. That is what I should have added.
Do not mind me, I was just doing some needed editing.
Really?
"ALL" Muslims do?
Just like "ALL" Protestants do this, and "ALL" Catholics do the that and "ALL" Jews do whatever?
The fact of the matter is that hundreds of millions of Protestants and Catholics pay very little attention to being religious and a very large percentage of Jews are secular Jews. They are "RINO's": Religious in Name Only.
Until, that is, somebody or some group openly attacks their religion and then the secular Jews is wearing a yarmulke in public to protest the KKK burning of a synagogue and every Catholic in Poland becomes more Catholic than the Pope to fight back against the Soviets that are attacking their religious tradition.
Likewise, in the Middle East, radical Islamists have been the exception and not the norm in the 20th Century.
The Republic of Turkey has been fighting Islamists since the 1920's. The Shah of Iran ran a secular regime. In the 1960's, at the time of the Arab-Israeli War, all the politically radical Arab regimes such as Baathist Syria and Nasser's Egypt were secular to almost the point of the atheism of the Soviet patron.
Yet, Tancredo would give the Islamist religious nutjobs a rallying point to get every "MINO" (Muslim in Name Only) fired up about defending the Muslim World against "the Crusaders".
Also it would not suprise me if Sen. Clinton takes on as a attractive option, as part of her platform what Sen. Barack has said in the event of a possible Clintion/Obama ticket down the road.
Yes, she would. But, even Hillary is wise enough to know that you do not STUPIDLY ADVERTISE THE FACT like Obama did and give the radical Islamists a valuable propaganda tool to use to help to overthrow the Pakistani regime currently friendly to the U.S.
If a high value radical Islamist target were to be blown to bits by an American JDAM ten miles inside sovereign Pakistani territory next week, Pakistan would "vigorously protest", the U.S. would apologize for the "unfortunate accidental bombing that occurred because of a malfunctioning GPS satellite" and Bush and Musharaf would send each other "high fives" through ultra-secure channels.
You do realize that Pakistan is not seeking nuclear weapons?
Pakistan already HAS nuclear weapons.
In December 6, 1941, most of America wanted to stay out of World War Two. After December 7, 1941, there was only a single vote in the U.S. Congress to stay out of World War Two.
What will you accomplish by ADVERTISING an attack on sovereign Pakistani territory?
You will unite the average patriotic Pakistani against the U.S. and the Musharaf regime that curreently supports the U.S. and you hand the average patriotic Pakistani gift-wrapped to the radical religious Islamists preaching JIhad against America.
With that you hand over Pakistan and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to the religious nutjobs who then hand out Pakistan's nuclear weapons capabilities to every other Islamist nutjob that wants to join the Nuclear Club.
As I wrote in Post 65:
"... even Hillary is wise enough to know that you do not STUPIDLY ADVERTISE THE FACT like Obama did and give the radical Islamists a valuable propaganda tool to use to help to overthrow the Pakistani regime currently friendly to the U.S.
If a high value radical Islamist target were to be blown to bits by an American JDAM ten miles inside sovereign Pakistani territory next week, Pakistan would "vigorously protest", the U.S. would apologize for the "unfortunate accidental bombing that occurred because of a malfunctioning GPS satellite" and Bush and Musharaf would send each other 'high fives' through ultra-secure channels."
The reason why the radicals were the exception and not the norm in the 20th century is because Islam in its most pure form was dorment. Thanks to the black gold that come out from the ground, money was provided by the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia, plus an Iran that went radical in its Shia Islam.
True there are folks who are reglious in name only. To translate what you have said means in other words is that when threatened, like a family member that is threatened, they will go back in observed the faith of their heritage.
Depends on the version of morality you subscribe to
In my version, I care about the welfare and survival of my family and my friends first, and I am willing to employ ANY and ALL means necessary.
People who belong to a doctrine of demonstrated hostility come last on my list of concerns.
Since the Vatican was not an active supporter of our enemies, then it would have made no sense
If the Pope had been doing weekly sermons promoting Mussolini, with priests in hundreds of churches acting as active recruiters for the fascists, then doing so would have been an acceptable response. And I'm speaking as a Catholic. If the leadership of my church were advocating evil, it would be my moral duty to leave that church
Anyone who stands in solidarity with evil, is himself evil.
Since the Vatican was not an active supporter of our enemies, then it would have made no sense
Some during World War Two and even until today believe the Vatican did just that. (I do not subscribe to that line of thought and I am Catholic myself.)
Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII by John Cornwell
The point is that, if the RAF had bombed the Vatican in 1940 to teach Mussolini and Irish Catholic rebels in Ulster a lesson, the public opinion of Catholics in the U.S. would have turned violently against Great Britain even amongst Catholics that had not set foot inside a Catholic Church in the past 15 years.
Better look to the welfare of your soul. While pursuing the admirable goal of the welfare of your loved ones, you've embraced the satanic logic of doing evil that good may come of it.
And I'm speaking as a Catholic. If the leadership of my church were advocating evil, it would be my moral duty to leave that church
The leader of your church is Christ. Careful, citing evil bishops as an excuse for schism is the old heresy of Donatism.(Though salutary church reform has, on occasion, been the result of military action.)
Anyone who stands in solidarity with evil, is himself evil.
And only God is good. Where does that leave us?
Targeting innocents in wartime is one such act of solidarity with evil. You're trying to beat terrorists at their own game, with their own murderous tactics.
A certain "Tailgunner Joe" pointed this out over 50 years ago and to this day he is still vilified by our press to the point where his name has become a verb in the dictionary. Even though the KGB files proved him fully correct.
Good article. I appreciate you posting it.
All the handwringing and moaning going on around here regarding Tancredo’s remarks shows a lack of collective will to fight the threat we all face.
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.