Posted on 09/20/2004 12:32:22 PM PDT by zencat
A video posted Monday on a Web site showed the beheading of a man identified as American construction contractor Eugene Armstrong, a killing purportedly carried out personally by key terror suspect Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...
You and Fitz should buy each other a beer. You have argued well, and never stooped to the name calling that so often happens. I'm not convinced, but I admit you fellows have given me a lot to think about regarding the nature of Islam and what degree of force may be necessary to win this war with a minimum loss of American life. I look forward to encountering you gentlemen again. I've got to work in the morning (I am a conservative!). Take care.
Someone should force Kerry to view this atrocity.
Thirty years ago he falsely accused the US military of EXACTLY this same thing in order to subvert the war effort in order to further his silly fantasy that he is the new JFK.
Today, while this REAL atrocity was taking place his speech in New York was specifically focused on an attempt to sabotage the war effort in Iraq - to give encouragement to the enemy, demoralize our troops and try to destroy public support -- again selling out his "band of brothers" and his country to advance his even sillier fantasy that he is presidential material.
With apologies to George Santanya -- Those who cannot learn from THEIR OWN history are doomed to repeat it.
The upcoming election may well be a referendum on the apocryphal response by Benjamin Franklin when asked, "what kind of government to we have, Mr. Franklin?" - his answer, "A Republic, IF you can keep it!"
Then wade through the bowels of Iraq until it is clean of this bacteria. DO NOT STOP until the bastards are throwing the heads of the Isalmic facists in the streets with the heads of their women and children in a sack with them. The bloodshed should be brutal and NON STOP until the city is "democratic". Every day that we plan and sit by, they believe we are weak. They ONLY understand brutality. They don't apreciate that we are good and don't want to hurt them. Their culture says we are weak and don't have the gonads to fight them. If we wait for elections and other niceties, we will loose just that many more and bolster their clain that we are impotent.
are you responding to something I said in particular?
From your lips to God's ears brother....from your lips.
Our boys don't have to put up with a death from a thousand cuts.
Terrorize them, desecrate them, violate them, remove journalists and shoot those who won't leave.
Where they move our way, graciously continue to 'love on' them, but kill every damn person that even smells like a terrorist or looks at you funny.
This PC BS MUST FREAKING STOP and THE HAMMER OF UGLINESS COME DOWN.
AND EVERY DAMN DAY tell the Iraqi people that there aren't enough stupid Communist Americans that will vote for us to elect John Fing Shi*bird Kerry and cut and run on them, leaving them to die and be tortured.
BUT GET THE BIG FREAKINGGGGGG HAMMERRRRRRS out and start pounding like we're losing D.C. to France...
You are wrong in this. It is not evil to put down a rabid dog. It is not evil to justly exterminate the guilty. There is a difference between slowly sawing off the head of a bound prisoner and ridding the world of sub-animal scum. Anyone who binds themselves to this scum, relates to this scum or even agrees to be in the general vicinity of this scum is guilty by association and will suffer the same fate as the murders. No. We do not become evil by slaughtering the evil.
Your post #209 was very rational, intelligent, correct and reasonable. I'll reread it in a few days when I'm in a state of mind to believe it. Right now, I just can't care. *Somebody* needs to die over this situation. Tomorrow I will hope that cooler heads prevail, but not right now.
It is painful to watch, and I understand your point completely.
Kerry does what he does best. He was a traitor then. . .and a traitor now.
Our prisoners in VietNam were made to pay a price by way of Kerry's contributions to the national dialogue and our citizen prisoners in Iraq suffer a similar fate; because of the same debate and from the same man.
No thanks. When venting becomes a mob call for genocide, I don't back off.
I expect Conservatives to be wise, measured and resolute. I have little patience for folks who become useful tools of our enemy.
Terrorists stage these inhuman outrages to foment rage-laden and immoral overreaction. Freepers who routinely take that hook get no respect from me.
Your reply to Greybeard didn't sound wise or measured and that's what I was referring to .
Your words to him:
"Your crap smells Pops".
Free the Islamofascists prisoners. First behead them, and drop their mishapen and misbegotten heads over their home villages, so as to be instructive.
see 221
"Fallujah has been the center of resistance for a long time, it is the major city of Sunni tribe which placed Sadam in power. It is the city that "defeated" the USMC, or so it thinks, until Fallujah falls and falls hard Iraq will remain a terrorist state. Every PC effort has been made trying to deal with Fallujah, all have failed. Fallujah should be considered an enemy city in enemy hands and deal with accordingly."
Good point. For the thousandth time, I don't argue against taking out the enemy. I argue for using restraint when taking innocent lives. To the point that restraint endangers American lives, I disavow it. Again, cut as wide a swath as necessary, but no more.
Right now all Islamic cities wish they were Fallujah, the great city that defeated the US Marines, the city that stands defiant to the USA. It is madness to allow Fallujah to remain undefeated and defiant. If we do not have the will to take Fallujah down, then we should get our troops out of the middle east.
I am very serious about this, either fight to win or get out.
"either fight to win or get out"
Ok. Agreed. But as soon as Fallujah is leveled, Iran and the rest of the terrorist regimes will begin sending their troops to those other cities you mention who are wishing they too could claim to have defeated America. The current US strategy is to keep defeating the insurgents as they appear, while destroying the regimes that support them. When the regimes fall, and only then, will we defeat their tactic--terror. You appear to be advocating the strategic use of high destruction to dishearten the minds of our adversaries, and teach them not to mess with us. It won't work as long as there are regimes that specialize in convincing young disenfranchised men their enemy is the U.S. and to die delivering a blow to the U.S. is the highest honor.
I would argue in favor of a Roman approach to the middle east in general and Fallujah in particular. A Roman approach would be to punish cities that resisted US imposed peace, laws and to reward cities that did not. (Reward means do not punish). I argue for the Roman approach since we know it works (worked for the Romans) and it is becoming clear that the PC/American approach is not working in Fallujah.
I have on many occasions stated that we should deal with Iraq/middle east on a city by city basis, that there really is not a nation of Iraq, Iraq is more like numerous city states, deal with each separately. Punish, really punish "bad" city states and go easy on "good" city states. I think we would motivate bad city states to become good city states if the city understood the penalty for being bad was destruction.
So far the only city that fits my definition of "bad" is Fallujah. So I am not advocating the destruction of any city other then it. And it could be that are "good" parts of Fallujah, if so then I would consider not destroying those parts.
I follow your reasoning, and your point that Iraq is composed of city-states is original and I'm going to do some thinking on it.
That said, the leap I'm not willing to make is that we are justified in condemning an entire city. I know there are a ton of historical precedents that this is the way warfare is done. Earlier, I made the point that with today's weapons, Truman may have made a different decision regarding nukes. The reason we trampled the Iraqi regime as quickly as we did is our commanders had new warfare technology and were willing to deploy it with new stategies. The result was the single most impressive military campaign in history. I have faith (for the time being) they are equally adept at winning the peace. This is openly debatable, and I will not argue it. There is no evidence to support it, other than my willingness to hang true to the original strategy. If it becomes untenable, I am confident our Commander in Chief is just as unwilling as you and I to waste a single soldier's life. Mr. Bush supports his commanders, and they are good men. If we end up in the bigger fight you predict, we'll do whatever is necessary to take it to the enemy. As for Rome, they eventually fell because of the same internal challenges we face today. The reason we must fight as clean a war as possible is we are today defining our nation for tomorrow. American superiority is not the result of our willingness to be more brutal than anybody else, but rather our unchanging valuation of human life, whenever possible.
Some wish to define the enemy as all of Islam, well that is crazy, the Kurds are our allies and Muslim, so is the northern alliance in Afghanistan and what about the Turks? Clearly we can not define the enemy as all of Islam, but we must define an enemy if we are to win the war. That is an additional reason why the city state approach to Iraq is appealing. Were I to define the enemy I would say that the enemy is those that wish to impose an Islamic theocracy as the law and those that are not opposed to same. The enemy leadership then becomes the imam that control the mozes and their lieutenants. Enemy combatants/civilians are those that live in territory control by a theocracy.
Now I know that sounds harsh, people should be allowed to live in a theocracy if that is what they wish. Here in the USA we have lots of communities that are basically theocracy (Amish, Mormons, etc) but these western theocracies are tolerant of unbelievers, Islamic states are not, so until Islamic states becomes tolerant of unbelievers, unbelievers should not be tolerant of Islamic states, be they nations or cities or mozes.
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.