PDA

View Full Version : Time To Go On The Offense?


Lyn
08-16-2006, 09:37 PM
I don't know how it can be clearer than this
By Cal Thomas
Saturday, August 12, 2006


In one of the clearest statements made in a sometimes anonymous war on terrorism, President Bush said Thursday about the alleged attempt to hijack multiple flights from Britain to the United States: ?this nation is at war with Islamic fascists.? The question is, are we fighting the war aggressively on American and British soil, or are we merely playing defense? Defense, alone, does not win football games; neither can it win a war against islamofascism.

Many in the British media and some ?experts? appearing on American and British television remain steeped in denial, preferring ?Asian men? and ?evil people? and other disembodied terms to describe the islamofascists, hoping not to give ?offense? and make ?them? (whoever ?them? may be) even angrier at us. If they are already angry enough to attempt to blow up airlines and commit mass murder, how much angrier could they possibly get? British Prime Minister Tony Blair pledged to shut down certain mosques and deport ?preachers of hate? following last summer?s subway and bus bombing in London. The legal maneuverings of civil libertarians and the organized protests by Muslim groups have frustrated Blair. Less than a week before the arrest of some of the alleged airplane plotters, Blair stepped up his offensive by announcing his intention to deport dozens of Islamic extremists (it should be thousands). The Bank of England said it had frozen the bank accounts of the four men suspected of carrying out the July 21, 2005 London bombings amid allegations they had collected more than 500,000 pounds ($892,000) in benefits.

Blair said, ?Let no one be in any doubt, the rules of the game are changing.? They changed a long time ago, but British courts haven?t learned how to ?play? by the new rules. They remain ? as do too many American courts ? mired in a 1960s civil liberties mentality. They have ruled anti-terrorism laws illegal and stopped deportation to countries where they fear people might receive ?inhumane treatment.? You can?t get more inhumane than blowing up subway trains, buses and airplanes. British and American courts have an outdated approach to law, increasing the likelihood that more of us will be murdered.

It is long past the time when we need to start ?playing? the equivalent of smash-mouth football with these people. They?ve got our number, but we don?t yet have theirs. The British are still shocked that people who are born in their country, go to their schools, have British accents and eat fish and chips would kill their fellow Brits. They do so because their allegiance is not to Britain, or to the Queen, but rather to their perverted view of God and the instructions from the hate preachers telling them to go bag some Jews, Christians, Westerners and other ?infidels.?

Health officials respond to plagues by isolation and eradication. Their objective is not only to control the spread of a disease, but also to kill it so it won?t infect others. If that is an effective method for combating a plague, why is it not also a good strategy for combating the islamofascist plague?

This isn?t about ?civil rights? and constitutional protection. These people use our Constitution to protect themselves so they can kill us. And this is decidedly not a game. It is life and death. We want to live and they want us dead. Any questions?

If the London bombing plot had succeeded and thousands had died, would we stop playing defense and be more aggressive on offense? The FBI?s chief of counterterrorism, Joseph Billy Jr., says the bureau is currently investigating 10,000 terrorism cases in the United States, Afghanistan, Iraq and other places. Is that frightening enough to be proactive? If not, would a nuclear device, or the threat of several nuclear devices exploding in major American cities do it?

As Blair struggles to do the right thing by deporting at least some islamofascists and silencing a few preachers of hate, why aren?t we Americans shutting their Waahabi-funded schools and mosques and deporting those who preach hate, sedition, Sharia law for all and the overthrow of the government? We had better overthrow them before they overthrow us. Who can doubt their ultimate objective

tony hipchest
08-16-2006, 09:59 PM
i love how war is now being compared to the game of football.

Lyn
08-16-2006, 10:01 PM
No kidding but in this politically correct world we live in you are not suppose to say what I would which is.............Make a parking lot out of raghead country. And get them all to hell out of our country!~

CAH
08-16-2006, 10:12 PM
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/30/cartoon.characters/vert.bugs.jpg

It's Islamic Season

Hawk Believer
08-16-2006, 10:26 PM
I don't know. The author seems pretty unclear to me.

I don't know how it can be clearer than this
By Cal Thomas
Saturday, August 12, 2006


If the London bombing plot had succeeded and thousands had died, would we stop playing defense and be more aggressive on offense? The FBI?s chief of counterterrorism, Joseph Billy Jr., says the bureau is currently investigating 10,000 terrorism cases in the United States, Afghanistan, Iraq and other places. Is that frightening enough to be proactive? If not, would a nuclear device, or the threat of several nuclear devices exploding in major American cities do it?


Take that paragraph for example. He is decrying that we are only playing "defense." Yet he is acknowledging that the UK and US used combined reources to stop an awful terrorist plot. How could we have stopped this attack if we weren't being proactive? Isn't that the very definition of proactive?

He then contradicts himself with the next 2 lines again. He cites that the FBI is investigating 10,000 terrorist cases around the world. Doesn't that indicate we are being proactive?

Bejamin Franklin said "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

Thats admittedly oversimplifiying the issue, but I do think we need to not let our fear of an enemy let us compromise our Constitution. I do think that some people in government would (with the best of intentions) be willing to take away someof our Constitutional rights in order to protect us. Its a tricky balance. But one of the costs of liberty is that we can't prevent all evil. There aren't many drug dealers in Bejing, but at what cost?

tony hipchest
08-16-2006, 10:45 PM
the whole article seemed to be ambiguous and written for the sake of getting something in by a deadline.

the biggest guffaw and most notable point i saw was actually comparing the war on terrorism to a football game when people now frown upon a game being compared to war.

personally i wouldnt care if the radical islams and their land were turned into nuclear testing grounds. but we better look to a different administration and party cause jr. and sr. have proven they cant (or wont) get the job done.

SteelCzar76
08-16-2006, 10:56 PM
the whole article seemed to be ambiguous and written for the sake of getting something in by a deadline.

the biggest guffaw and most notable point i saw was actually comparing the war on terrorism to a football game when people now frown upon a game being compared to war.

personally i wouldnt care if the radical islams and their land were turned into nuclear testing grounds. but we better look to a different administration and party cause jr. and sr. have proven they cant (or wont) get the job done.


Lord forbid the necessary actions to solve the problems of radicals (of any kind) be taken,.....the thought of upsetting the jealous, bleeding heart and useless U.N. would be unbearable. Sacrificing all of humanity pales in comparison to "hurting someone's feelings" and or financial alliances.


"Hail Caesar,....Hail the Black and Gold"

Hawk Believer
08-16-2006, 11:02 PM
Lord forbid the necessary actions to solve the problems of radicals (of any kind) be taken,.....the thought of upsetting the jealous, bleeding heart and useless U.N. would be unbearable. Sacrificing all of humanity pales in comparison to "hurting someone's feelings" and or financial alliances.


"Hail Caesar,....Hail the Black and Gold"

So was stopping the London plane bombing an example of us cowtowing to islamic terrorists? I don't get it.

BlacknGold Bleeder
08-16-2006, 11:07 PM
personally i wouldnt care if the radical islams and their land were turned into nuclear testing grounds. but we better look to a different administration and party cause jr. and sr. have proven they cant (or wont) get the job done.

I don't think this administration can be blamed for not trying. With the handcuffs that are placed on them by everybody worried about infringing on other people's rights, it's a damn near impossible job. What about our right to live without fear ebing a target. I'll step down off the soapbox for now ...

SteelCzar76
08-16-2006, 11:26 PM
So was stopping the London plane bombing an example of us cowtowing to islamic terrorists? I don't get it.



I said nothing of us Cowtowing to islamic terrorists. I'm saying "Don't let the smooth taste fool you" EVERYTHING,.... with ANYONE in power has to do with retaining that power,.. or the accuisition of more. So it's pointless for us to dicuss such matters,....from a perspective of what's necessary.


"Hail Caesar,.....Hail the Black and Gold"

Livinginthe past
08-17-2006, 04:05 AM
Going on 'Offense' means lowering ourselves to the level of the terrorists.

This means closing down places of worship for a particular religion - there is no such thing as an extremist Muslim - only a Muslim right?

They are all the same underneath, and should all be treated as potential terrorists.

The only sane thing to do would be to deport everyone from the UK and US who looks a bit Muslim into a 'quarantine' country such as Afghanistan - and then nuke it.

Do I hear the ref call TOUCHDOWN?

NM

j-dawg
08-17-2006, 11:20 AM
No kidding but in this politically correct world we live in you are not suppose to say what I would which is.............Make a parking lot out of raghead country. And get them all to hell out of our country!~


yikes. do you really think we should just nuke the middle east? if so, you need :help:

klick81
08-17-2006, 11:53 AM
yikes. do you really think we should just nuke the middle east? if so, you need :help:

Never thought i'd agree with a Brown's fan.

Lyn
08-17-2006, 12:22 PM
yikes. do you really think we should just nuke the middle east? if so, you need :help:


The madness in the Middle East has all of us frustrated and concerned. To answer your question, No, I do not want anyone to be "nuked." if our government has even a modicum of concern left for our country's welfare it will quietly but firmly let all countries invovled right now, to knock it off. After all, this adventure could be a disaster for them as well. It is one of many major interests we have in the region. We cannot win them all. In the long run, there has to be an international rule of law that governs nukes everywhere. Pending that, MADness is likely to reign, in the Middle East as elsewhere.

klick81
08-17-2006, 01:20 PM
In the long run, there has to be an international rule of law that governs nukes everywhere.

From my knowledge, this already exists. However, we (the US) were the only ones not abiding by the law. This is when other countries began following the same path. If it doesn't apply to us, why should other countries feel limited by it?

Livinginthe past
08-17-2006, 01:41 PM
From my knowledge, this already exists. However, we (the US) were the only ones not abiding by the law. This is when other countries began following the same path. If it doesn't apply to us, why should other countries feel limited by it?

I have tried to address this problem numerous times.

The 'holier than thou' act used by the USA and UK is reliant upon the Irans of this world holding their hands up and admitting, that yes, they are bad guys and shouldn't be trusted with Nukes.

I can't understand how they hope to convince a nation of people and its Government that they are less capable of commisioning a nuclear program that the countries that currently have it, no matter what our own personal thoughts are on the subject.

If the US and UK seriously expect countries to move away from the nuclear bomb (countries such as India and Pakistan - who wouldnt be adverse to using them on each other) then they need to make a move in that direction first.

Its up to someone to show some leadership and show the way - 'do as I say and not as I do' doesn't fly after you reach your teenage years.

NM

augustashark
08-17-2006, 03:31 PM
From my knowledge, this already exists. However, we (the US) were the only ones not abiding by the law. This is when other countries began following the same path. If it doesn't apply to us, why should other countries feel limited by it?


Becuase we are the daddy! We are #1! The US and the Steelers have alot in common....We are both the biggest and the baddest in the World!

Litp-:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: Thats all you ever come with! I can only hope that when you do have children, that you will wise up.

Hawk Believer
08-17-2006, 03:39 PM
I said nothing of us Cowtowing to islamic terrorists. I'm saying "Don't let the smooth taste fool you" EVERYTHING,.... with ANYONE in power has to do with retaining that power,.. or the accuisition of more. So it's pointless for us to dicuss such matters,....from a perspective of what's necessary.


"Hail Caesar,.....Hail the Black and Gold"
My bad. I misread your post as relating directly to the article. You have a very distinctive style to your writing and sometimes your posts seem full of mystic riddles to me... Kinda like Yoda or or something.

I am truly interested in your perspective. Do you think that the US/UK has not eradicated radical terrosists because they don't have the guts or because you think that they benefit and are more powerful with the status quo?

j-dawg
08-17-2006, 07:45 PM
Becuase we are the daddy! We are #1! The US and the Steelers have alot in common....We are both the biggest and the baddest in the World!

Litp-:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: Thats all you ever come with! I can only hope that when you do have children, that you will wise up.


actually... if you were to look at the US as a "parental" figure... i think the US would be viewed more like a dead beat dad.

it's cut back on college education...
http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/22/pf/college/congress_loans/index.htm

health insurance for the young...
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/05/29/tax_cuts/index_np.html

and the "no child left behind" program has been criticized for doing just that...
http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20031217nclb1217p3.asp

Stlrs4Life
08-17-2006, 10:02 PM
What I don't ubnderstand is, Terrorism just didn't come along on 9/11. Terrorism has been around for many many years. And if we were to go on the offense, how do we get rid of them? Are all terrorists wearing unis that say Terrorist on them,? And you think we should just level Baghdad into a parking lot? Or just kill every Islamic person? They are not all bad people. There is, whether you want to believe it or not, innocent people there also. If we do anything that some of you stated, we are no better than Hitler killing all the Jews. We need to find a way out of the Middle East. tThere will never be total peace over there, never was, they always hated us and they always will.

SteelCzar76
08-18-2006, 04:53 PM
My bad. I misread your post as relating directly to the article. You have a very distinctive style to your writing and sometimes your posts seem full of mystic riddles to me... Kinda like Yoda or or something.

I am truly interested in your perspective. Do you think that the US/UK has not eradicated radical terrosists because they don't have the guts or because you think that they benefit and are more powerful with the status quo?

Hawk,

It's not that we (USA) and the U.k lack the resolve, means or resources to finish Radicals. It's the fact that the actions we'd have to take could not be comprehended by most people. It would require a level of ruthless efficiancy that our effeminate modern world could not bear. It would also be "bad for buisness",......(if the middle East wasn't above Oil,.. do you really think the we'd give a F$ck ?). The racial (breed), biblical, and sociopolitical rehetoric is for the masses,...it's about FINANCIAL alliances. The Idea,...the theory of our country is the Greatest ever conceived by man. The problem is,....we refuse to accept this Destiny, ("regardless of the charge"). In other words,....if war is NECCESSARY then wage TOTAL war. If not,......then take care of your own house first.


"Hail Caesar,....Hail the Black and Gold"

Stlrs4Life
08-18-2006, 05:36 PM
Hawk,

It's not that we (USA) and the U.k lack the resolve, means or resources to finish Radicals. It's the fact that the actions we'd have to take could not be comprehended by most people. It would require a level of ruthless efficiancy that our effeminate modern world could not bear. It would also be "bad for buisness",......(if the middle East wasn't above Oil,.. do you really think the we'd give a F$ck ?). The racial (breed), biblical, and sociopolitical rehetoric is for the masses,...it's about FINANCIAL alliances. The Idea,...the theory of our country is the Greatest ever conceived by man. The problem is,....we refuse to accept this Destiny, ("regardless of the charge"). In other words,....if war is NECCESSARY then wage TOTAL war. If not,......then take care of your own house first.


"Hail Caesar,....Hail the Black and Gold"


Excellent Post! Best post yet. Karma to ya. Or rep points to ya .