Ft Hood Terror Attack

[Michael Hardner]

Wulf,

Personally i think we need to inflict damage on terrorist's much more than we are now ie: wipe out the Talibans opium fields!

Fine, then say so instead of daydreaming about bombing civilians which, again, is disgusting.

[Michael Hardner]

Gabriel,

And who the hell is talking about Mecca? Where did you get Mecca from ANYTHING I've said?

That's what Wulf mentioned, as I already explained.

Fine, if you're recanting, then we'll leave Wulf's daydream of bombing Mecca on the table, and we'll note that you are more of a moderate, yet do not feel it necessary to speak out against extreme daydreams such as Wulf postulated on.

[M.Dancer]

Gabriel,

That's what Wulf mentioned, as I already explained.

Fine, if you're recanting, then we'll leave Wulf's daydream of bombing Mecca on the table, and we'll note that you are more of a moderate, yet do not feel it necessary to speak out against extreme daydreams such as Wulf postulated on.

I don't feel it necessary to speak out against every wing nuts post, why should another be compelled to?

by the way, I don't recall you ever speaking out against sex with dead parrots...I can only assume what that means.

[wulf42]

Wulf,

Fine, then say so instead of daydreaming about bombing civilians which, again, is disgusting.

Your a Moron.............i said destroy opium fields and you rant about civilians....

you must be a .........ah never mind your not worth the bother.

[Michael Hardner]

MD

I don't feel it necessary to speak out against every wing nuts post, why should another be compelled to?

by the way, I don't recall you ever speaking out against sex with dead parrots...I can only assume what that means.

I don't either. I was subtly referring to the 'moderate Muslims don't speak up enough about extremists' school of thought.

[Michael Hardner]

Wulf,

Your a Moron.............i said destroy opium fields and you rant about civilians....

you must be a .........ah never mind your not worth the bother.

You said "what if the US threatened to bomb..." which is a hair short of advocating such a threat. I suppose I have to acknowledge that your daydream about threatening to kill civilians doesn't in itself comprise advocacy of killing civilians. It's a strange fantasy to have though, IMO.

[Michael Hardner]

Wulf,

Your a Moron

And you're a terrible speller. You just accused me of attacking you, ("sticking to the arguement they attempt to attack the poster") when I was pointing out how you wondered aloud about the US threatening Mecca with nuclear attack.

Then you backpeddle as such:

.i said destroy opium fields and you rant about civilians

It's baffling to me as to how you seem to consider the option to threaten nuclear attack against innocents, then try to say you were talking about opium fields.

[wulf42]

Wulf,

And you're a terrible speller. You just accused me of attacking you, ("sticking to the arguement they attempt to attack the poster") when I was pointing out how you wondered aloud about the US threatening Mecca with nuclear attack.

Lol..........i didn t realize we were in English class, you and others who can't have a debate without personal attacks are starting to make this Forum hardly worth the bother.Can t you even stick to a topic but then i guess when you run out options to debate turn to the ole personal attacks option.....the truth is i really don t care what happens in the M.E. as long as those people keep their crap over there! If they all kill each other i could careless but leave our country out of it!

Edited November 12, 2009 by wulf42

[GostHacked]

Lol..........i didn t realize we were in English class, you and others who can't have a debate without personal attacks are starting to make this Forum hardly worth the bother.Can t you even stick to a topic but then i guess when you run out options to debate turn to the ole personal attacks option.....the truth is i really don t care what happens in the M.E. as long as those people keep their crap over there! If they all kill each other i could careless but leave our country out of it!

If the US bombs Mecca (hypothetically) then you are going to have a whole new wave of people supporting the Jihad. You can't kill an ideology. You can't kill an enemy that does not seem to have borders. Not with guns and bombs anyways.

[Gabriel]

If the US bombs Mecca (hypothetically) then you are going to have a whole new wave of people supporting the Jihad. You can't kill an ideology. You can't kill an enemy that does not seem to have borders. Not with guns and bombs anyways.

Wrong. Any enemy can be destroyed. An ideology may not be completely wiped off the face of the face earth, but we should try our best to get as close to its complete annihilation as possible. Nazism as an ideology was fought during WWII. Fundamentalist/extremist Islamists should be fought with the same zeal.

Why don't you just take your argument to its logical conclusion - we can't defeat extremist/fundamentalist Islamic terrorism through force, so let's just acquiesce and learn to live with them. let's accommodate some of their demands, even. It is those who have attitudes like you that extend the duration of this war and lead to more casualties among our armed forces and those of our allies.

[GostHacked]

Wrong. Any enemy can be destroyed.

If Germany was the enemy, how is Germany alive today? Are they still our enemy? No. Were they destroyed? No.

An ideology may not be completely wiped off the face of the face earth, but we should try our best to get as close to its complete annihilation as possible. Nazism as an ideology was fought during WWII. Fundamentalist/extremist Islamists should be fought with the same zeal.

We are still fighting Naziism today, but no longer with the zeal that it was done in the first half of the 20th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism#United_States

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, which allows political organizations great latitude in expressing Nazi, racist, and anti-Semitic views. A First Amendment landmark was the "Skokie Affair", in which neo-Nazis threatened to march in a predominantly Jewish suburb of Chicago. The march never took place in Skokie, but the court ruling allowed the neo-Nazis to stage a series of demonstrations in the Chicago area. In addition to targeting Jews and African Americans, neo-Nazi groups are known to harass and attack Asian Americans, Latinos, Arab Americans, Native Americans, homosexuals, Catholics, and people with different political or religious opinions. American neo-Nazi groups often operate websites, occasionally stage public demonstrations, and maintain ties to groups in Europe and elsewhere.[77]

Neo-nazis have let the movement live and it seems to be quite alive in parts of Germany and in North America. So, I will say I am still right that you cannot kill an ideology. It has no geographical borders. Take religion as an example. Religion has no borders, only followers. If it was not for free speech, we would not know how stupid and crazy some of these ideologies really are. They make a big stink so the rest of the poeple with some common sense can laugh at them and say 'go away'.

Why don't you just take your argument to its logical conclusion - we can't defeat extremist/fundamentalist Islamic terrorism through force, so let's just acquiesce and learn to live with them.

That is also the wrong approach, because you are going to get run over. We need to engage them in conversation, we need to talk to each other. We need to be closer to each other.

let's accommodate some of their demands, even.

Sure, only if they are willing to make compromises. If not, then we have nothing to talk about.

It is those who have attitudes like you that extend the duration of this war and lead to more casualties among our armed forces and those of our allies.

Stick it. I am against the war in the first place. And even if I did support it, I would not have done it half assed like it has been done, in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Balls to the wall or simply don't go. You and I have both agreed that this war was done half assed right from the start, so please explain how my attitude is extending this war? You have clearly not been listening to the military generals who are in the field asking for mor troops. They knew the job was tough right from the start. They simply don't have the number of boots on the ground they need to quickly and decisivley finish this task.

You are also going to see the battles in Pakistan for at least the next 5 years.

[Army Guy]

Wrong. Any enemy can be destroyed. An ideology may not be completely wiped off the face of the face earth, but we should try our best to get as close to its complete annihilation as possible. Nazism as an ideology was fought during WWII. Fundamentalist/extremist Islamists should be fought with the same zeal.

You can correct me if i'm wrong but in this para your saying if we fight Extremist Islam with the same zeal as we did Nazism then it can be defeated....

Why don't you just take your argument to its logical conclusion - we can't defeat extremist/fundamentalist Islamic terrorism through force, so let's just acquiesce and learn to live with them. let's accommodate some of their demands, even. It is those who have attitudes like you that extend the duration of this war and lead to more casualties among our armed forces and those of our allies.

And here your saying we can not defeat extremist Islam with force, so we should learn just to get along....Which deamnds should we accomodate, Burkas, Shia law, I let you pick but plse tell us what they are...Tell us what these terrorist have to offer that we would consider accomodating...

[Gabriel]

That is also the wrong approach, because you are going to get run over. We need to engage them in conversation, we need to talk to each other. We need to be closer to each other.

Stick it. I am against the war in the first place. And even if I did support it, I would not have done it half assed like it has been done, in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Balls to the wall or simply don't go. You and I have both agreed that this war was done half assed right from the start, so please explain how my attitude is extending this war? You have clearly not been listening to the military generals who are in the field asking for mor troops. They knew the job was tough right from the start. They simply don't have the number of boots on the ground they need to quickly and decisivley finish this task.

You are also going to see the battles in Pakistan for at least the next 5 years.

Perhaps you have reading comprehension issues. I didn't dispute that an ideology cannot be completely annihilated. I clearly conceded this, and stated that we should put as much effort as possible into crushing the enemy as much as possible.

With respect to your Obama-esque diplomacy approach regarding engaging our enemies in dialogue, what's there to talk about? Our enemies have been consistent with their message: destroy America and her allies and kill all non-believers. They're talking to us, and they're telling us that they want to kill us and establish an Islamic empire. They're already murdered thousands of civilians around the world, from NYC to Mumbai to London to Tel Aviv to Islamabad. Their intentions are clear. Their message is clear. What's to talk about? These enemies of ours are animals who must be completely annihilated. There is no negotiation with extremist/fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. Even those that claim they only want to be extremists within their own territories (i.e. certain Afghani tribes that want the permission to be left alone so they can brutalize their own populations within a limited area, without expansionist desires) must be destroyed. Hearts and minds? Break their hearts and destroy their minds. We have sacrificed IMMENSELY for the freedom and emancipation of Afghanis and Iraqis. Clearly there are populations within these countries who insist on viewing us as the infidels/invaders (despite our massive sacrifices largely on their behalf) and equate the war on terror with a war in Islam (an extremist position). They must also be destroyed. Take no prisoners, stop fighting this war half-assed, and kill the enemy.

I am also unsurprised that you were opposed to our defensive military actions. Clearly you are naive about the threat of fundamentalist/extremist Islamic terrorism. I implore you to reflect on your statements - specifically where you recommend that we talk to these animals. The same vermin that beheaded Daniel Pearl. The same garbage that send suicide bombers into busy Baghdad bazaars. The same subhumans that take hundreds of children hostages in Beslan, resulting in the murder of almost one thousand people. Our enemies are already talking to us, you're just refusing to listen.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Gabriel

[Michael Hardner]

Wulf,

Lol..........i didn t realize we were in English class, you and others who can't have a debate without personal attacks are starting to make this Forum hardly worth the bother.Can t you even stick to a topic but then i guess when you run out options to debate turn to the ole personal attacks option.....the truth is i really don t care what happens in the M.E. as long as those people keep their crap over there! If they all kill each other i could careless but leave our country out of it!

Sorry - can you point out where I personally attacked you ? I can point out where you personally attacked me quite easily. Let's see if you respond to my question or just breeze on by.

Now you're saying "i [sic] really don't care what happens in the M.E.". This from the poster who was just wondering what would happen if the U.S. threatened to bomb the centre of Islam"

This behavior is called "running away" and it's cowardly behavior to state a point of view then turn tail and say you don't care what happens. And no, that's not a personal attack by the way - it's a comment on your posting style as evidenced in the thread.

You need to learn the difference:

"You're a moron" = personal attack, actionable by the moderator

"Your method of stating an opinion and then fleeing from it shows cowardly debating style" = comment on your argument, fair game

Do you understand now ?

[Michael Hardner]

Wulf - one more thing. If you support the US and its president, you should not be against Islam as you have stated but understand what the president said

"When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace."

Get onside with our allies !

Edited November 12, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[DogOnPorch]

"When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace."

Unless you're a woman.

[DogOnPorch]

Or gay.

[DogOnPorch]

Or not a Muslim.

[jbg]

And look at Switzerland. They didn't even get attacked once.

Neutral countries serve as useful bases and transit positions for all combatants. Germany, for example, made quite good use of Switzerland in that respect. However, not all neutrals are left unmolested. Germany attacked neutral Belgium in both world wars when it suited their purposes. And the Arabs routinely attack neutral Western non-combatant individuals.

Your words of sympathy and your support for the innocence would have more meaning if you did not try to justify the killing of the 1000 civilians in Gaza by the Israeli army.

A selective sympathizer is either a racist or a fake sympathizer.

There's nothing fake about sympathizing with the innocent civilians among whom Hamas combatants hide. Sympathy is all I give here since the civilians elected Hamas in the first place, putting them in the middle of a combat zone. Also, the use of human shields cannot stop any country (other than one bent on suicide) from retaliating.

[Michael Hardner]

DoP

Unless you're a woman. Or gay. Or not a Muslim.

These are the president's words not mine. I think they represent the view of mainstream Christians too:

"These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war."

[GostHacked]

Perhaps you have reading comprehension issues. I didn't dispute that an ideology cannot be completely annihilated. I clearly conceded this, and stated that we should put as much effort as possible into crushing the enemy as much as possible.

Sounds good. So why are we NOT fighting with the same zeal that we fought with Naziism? Is it because of people like me and our attitides? Or is it something like this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8356094.stm

The US ambassador in Kabul has written to the White House to oppose sending thousands more troops to Afghanistan. In a leaked cable, Karl Eikenberry said President Karzai's government should first prove it would tackle corruption.

With respect to your Obama-esque diplomacy approach regarding engaging our enemies in dialogue, what's there to talk about? Our enemies have been consistent with their message: destroy America and the her allies and kill all non-believers.

This is right in line with the right-wing worldview of it all. Because for the most part they lump all Muslims in with the extremists. Most don't understand there is a difference. They are also destroying countries that are not considered allies to America or America's allies. It also dupes the ignorant to equating Islam=violence.

They're talking to us, and they're telling us that they want to kill us and establish an Islamic empire.

This is talking point #2.

They're already murdered thousands of civilians around the world, from NYC to Mumbai to London to Tel Aviv to Islamabad. Their intentions are clear. What's to talk about? These enemies of ours are animals who must be completely annihilated.

This is talking point #3.

There is no negotiation with extremist/fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. Even those that claim they only want to be extremists within their own territories (i.e. certain Afghani tribes that want the permission to be left alone so they can brutalize their own populations within a limited area, without expansionist desires) must be destroyed. Hearts and minds? Break their hearts and destroy their minds. We have sacrificed IMMENSELY for the freedom and emancipation of Afghanis and Iraqis.

Talking points 4, 5 and 6.

Clearly there are populations within these countries who insist on viewing us as the infidels/invaders (despite our massive sacrifices largely on their behalf) and equate the war on terror with a war in Islam (an extremist position). They must also be destroyed. Take no prisoners, stop fighting this war half-assed, and kill the enemy.

Well, when you get guys like the previous President George Bush, saying that this is a war of civilizations, you can equate that to a war on Islam. That does not seem to be lost on others.

I am also unsurprised that you were opposed to our defensive military actions. Clearly you are naive about the threat of fundamentalist/extremist Islamic terrorism. I implore you to reflect on your statements - specifically where you recommend that we talk to these animals.

Well, you are new to the board overall, Only been here a couple months. You might want to review some other threads related to terrorism and the wars we are fighting. And read what I have posted. Then come back and call me naieve.

The same vermin that beheaded Daniel Pearl. The same garbage that send suicide bombers into busy Baghdad bazaars. The same subhumans that take hundreds of children hostages in Beslan, resulting in the murder of almost one thousand people. Our enemies are already talking to us, you're just refusing to listen.

Before the invasion of Iraq, you never saw mass suicide bombings in that country on the scale you saw during the war, and you STILL see it today. There are STILL a lot of car bombs blowing up in Iraq. They just don't get as much international attention anymore.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq-bombing26-2009oct26,0,3074605.story

Reporting from Baghdad - Twin suicide bombings in the heart of downtown Baghdad killed 147 people Sunday in an attack seen as an attempt to undermine Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government at a time of rising political tensions over crucial national elections due in January.

The only difference now it seems, the terrorists are targeting the Iraqi government more instead of US soldiers.

[DogOnPorch]

DoP

These are the president's words not mine. I think they represent the view of mainstream Christians too:

"These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war."

I am aware they are the President's words. No, I'm not Christian.

[Michael Hardner]

DoP

I am aware they are the President's words. No, I'm not Christian.

Perhaps they should be taken to represent the view of mainstream conservatives then.

[Gabriel]

Sounds good. So why are we NOT fighting with the same zeal that we fought with Naziism? Is it because of people like me and our attitides? Or is it something like this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8356094.stm

I blame the opinions of those like yourself who seem to play down the seriousness of the threat we face from fundamentalist/extremist Islamic terrorism. This obsession with fighting a war in a half-assed manner out of a misplaced sense of mercy for our enemies is why the war has drawn on for so long. There never was shock and awe, what we've seen are half-measures and extreme restraint. The enemy only continues to exist because of our mercy for animals.

This is right in line with the right-wing worldview of it all. Because for the most part they lump all Muslims in with the extremists. Most don't understand there is a difference. They are also destroying countries that are not considered allies to America or America's allies. It also dupes the ignorant to equating Islam=violence.

I made a clear distinction between fundamentalist/extremist Islam (followers and sympathizers and supporters of whom must be annihilated without prejudice) and other forms of Islam. Unfortunately for civilians, it will often be difficult for us to discern between the various forms during a war. Again, the blood of all civilians in this war (and indeed, the blood of ALL the victims of this war) is on the hands of our enemies. We don't make policy based on what a few "dupes" might perceive. This obsession with not saying anything that may be taken the wrong way by idiots is a huge problem in our society, and is exemplified with Obama's choice to drop the word "terrorist/terrorism" from his lexicon. Who is he afraid of offending? Let's identify our enemies for what they are - terrorists.

You're also insulting the common sense of America and its allies. Americans and Canadians and the Western world knows the difference between extremist/fundamentalist Islam and other forms of Islam which can coexist with our values. We know the difference, but you apparently think we're too stupid to make the distinction.

This is talking point #2.

This is talking point #3.

Talking points 4, 5 and 6.

Excuse me? Are you disputing what I'm saying? I'm calling you out on your absurd suggestion that negotiation with our fundamentalist/extremist Islamic enemies can yield us any benefits. Our enemies must be destroyed. You advocate negotiation with animals who are opposed to every value we hold dear.

Well, when you get guys like the previous President George Bush, saying that this is a war of civilizations, you can equate that to a war on Islam. That does not seem to be lost on others.

I don't recall him saying that, but he's not entirely off with that remark. This is a battle between the free and modern world and those who wish to return us to the dark ages. It appears that you are the one who is unable to discern between extremist/fundamentalist Islamists and other types of Muslims. Perhaps you're the dupe that you warned me about earlier? President Bush clearly made the distinction between extremists and other types of Muslims, MANY TIMES. Apparently you missed all of those statements. That being said, President Bush was hardly the tough guy his detractors disparagingly described him as. He exercised extreme restraint in these conflict, and he is guilty of prosecuting half-assed wars. If he had the courage to do the right thing he would have annihilated our enemies and shown true shock and awe.

Well, you are new to the board overall, Only been here a couple months. You might want to review some other threads related to terrorism and the wars we are fighting. And read what I have posted. Then come back and call me naieve.

That's not the impression you're giving us all in this thread. You seem to have your head in the sand with respect to the threats we're facing from terrorism.

Before the invasion of Iraq, you never saw mass suicide bombings in that country on the scale you saw during the war, and you STILL see it today. There are STILL a lot of car bombs blowing up in Iraq. They just don't get as much international attention anymore.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq-bombing26-2009oct26,0,3074605.story

The only difference now it seems, the terrorists are targeting the Iraqi government more instead of US soldiers.

What's your point? The animals see weakness, and they attack. This is the result of us not eradicating our enemies and showing mercy. If we would simply take the handcuffs of our servicepersons and let them do their job, we'd have much less resistance. Forget about winning the hearts and minds of animals, BREAK their hearts and DESTROY them until there's nothing left. We cannot compromise our security by attempting to win over the hearts and minds of those who believe that suicide bombings are legitimate resistance. Our enemies are animals. Period.

[DogOnPorch]

Perhaps they should be taken to represent the view of mainstream conservatives then.

Obama's words? Neat trick.

What, in your opinion is the goal of Islamic terrorism? To get us to 'respect' Islam (read: fear Islam)? To drive the infidel off of 'Muslim lands'? A planet-wide Islamic caliphate?

I think all three, at least. And no...for the zillionth time: not all Muslims are a problem in this way: bombs, threats, riots, death, et al...anymore than all Germans were Nazis. But, the Muslims who are a problem are a very big problem while other moderate Muslims seem to give only a passing care that terror is being used in Islam's name. If you recall, it was a small group of about a dozen men that set the entire Final Solution of the Holocaust rolling. No reason to think a small group of Islamo-Nazis couldn't also become a scourage to civilization in the same way given half a chance.

Meanwhile, I sense tones of apology from some. This makes for a conundrum in terms of what these apologists are to "them", the terrorists, as well as what they represent in our society. Fifth column comes to mind...useful after the occupation...if we harken back to a WW2 style world-view rather than one laced with political correctness.