posted on September 12, 2005 11:21:38 AM new
You mean that you want a repeat of the Spanish Inquisition in the U.S. in the 21st century? Although (I do think the Spaniards allowed people to convert to Catholicism and be spared.) Shall will call it the American Inquisition or do you have a better title for the operation?
buyhigh
posted on September 12, 2005 11:53:27 AM new
LOL....so you'd rather NOT answer ANY of the questions put to you by others in this thread.....okay helen.
But, no, while you have already decided, in your own little twisted brain what I have said...you are wrong again.
Maybe you'd like it if I start making up things YOU think/ make up postions YOU believe in, since you obviously find it appropriate for you to do so to me.
There's a reason I've called you one of our 'twisted sisters' here. It's something you love doing. Totally making things up.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on September 12, 2005 12:04:08 PM new
Fair enough...
We'll let this statement that you made stand without comment.
Linda said,"I agree, piinthesky. And I would support them doing so too. And maybe if the day ever comes when they do the same thing to us....more American's will join in agreement to using the 'genocide' option."
Apparently you don't have the courage of your convictions if you deny what can so clearly be deduced from your remarks.
posted on September 12, 2005 12:18:50 PM new
I have no doubt that bin Laden is a dangerous monster who should be hunted down and captured. However, I am sure there are many more who can take his place. I don't know if there is a solution to terrorism, but I do know that genocide is unfathomable. If you lump everyone of common background together, there would be millions of innocents who would suffer because of their religion or nationality (see internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, slaughtering & forcing Native Americans onto reservations.) That is a part of American history we do not want to relive.
posted on September 12, 2005 12:25:06 PM new
No, helen, your brain isn't functioning properly. You lack the ability to read what I said about why a 'genocide' couldn't happen.....and my agreement with both desquirrel [on Jordan] and piinthesky's statesments [about Israel].
And that was in retaliation for *their* actions of murdering us or our allies FIRST. I would consider that the enemies 'call to go to war' with them.
You know....the one's you support, say bombing us again, like they did on 9-11....and we step in and do exactly what a democratic President did when Pearl Harbor was bombed/attacked?
And as our ally Israel, who we've promised to protect, if they were bombed by the terrorists in Jordan [desquirrel's example], then YES....I would support doing just as we did following Pearl Harbor.
So, hopefully now...your mind will be able to tell the difference between me NOT calling for a 'genocide' but saying that I would FULLY support retaliation, destruction against all those terrorists who are murdering innocents...without reason, without any provacation at all. Just because they will get to their God and their 'heaven' sooner.
JUST like we did in Afghanistan.
JUST like we did in Japan, twice.
To me genocide is to eliminate ALL of the citizens/there whole race/culture/sects, and that CAN'T be possible, even though you try to make it up because they're spread out all over the world.
Whereas retaliation of their actions is not going to do that. Like it didn't when we bombed Japan, it didn't when we bombed Afghanistan, like it didn't when we bombed Iraq.
But I will restate, just for you helen, that back in the days replay mentioned....the muslims were growing more and more powerful, taking over more and more countries....and we put a stop to that. Held them back for all these generations....and, sadly, maybe that's what it's going to take once again, IF they keep up these worldwide bombings of innocents.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 12, 2005 12:43 PM ]
posted on September 12, 2005 01:01:44 PM new
What some seem to forget about the nuke bombing of Japan at the end of WWII is that it was done to save lives.
At the time it was thought that a full scale invasion of Japan by American and alied forces would have cost an estimated 1 million lives, or more because of the Japanese resolve to fight to the end, to the last man.
The nuke bombing convinced the Japanese how futile their resolve was and that if they didn't sign the peace treaty then we would nuke more cities.
As far as Israel nukiung a middle eastern city, i don't think it's a matter of if but rather a matter of when and i too will support it when it happens. The US is in the middle east to try and prevent that from happening but make no mistake, if a middle eastern country were to use WMD on Israel there would be nothing anyone could do to stop them from using their nukes in retaliation.
posted on September 12, 2005 01:10:45 PM new
The problem is that you would support genocide IF THERE WAS NO SERIOUS IMPEDIMENT to that kind of action.
You made that perfectly clear when you said, "I agree, piinthesky. And I would support them doing so too. And maybe if the day ever comes when they do the same thing to us....more American's will join in agreement to using the 'genocide' option."
That statement along with several others that you have made here indicate that under the right circumstances that you would support the horrific practice of genocide. The fact that you refuse to make a declarative statement and answer either yes or no to my question is very telling.
You may question my thinking but I'll bet that I'm not the only reader here who has drawn that conclusion. I gave you a chance to answer no and instead, you refused to answer my question.
posted on September 12, 2005 01:20:11 PM new
oh helen...PLEASE stop your whining.
I said I'd answer yours IF you answered mine first. You haven't addressed may of the questions put to you....which is your NORMAL MO...lately. You just avoid stating how you really think and feel about what we should do to stop these constant terrorist bombings. You avoid it all together by saying we need to understand them. Well, we already do...they want us DEAD. NOW how would you stop that from happening here. You #*!@ all the time about the Patriot act....which was formed so we could better track them down. You disapprove of everything this administration has done to try and seek them out from our own population.
You complain about everything, but as a typical liberal YOU offer no solutions.
And no....looks like there's going to be NO convincing you.
So...tell us helen....why is it you're so against gay marriages?
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on September 12, 2005 01:25:30 PM new
Maybe you'll enjoy being put on the defensive all the time, helen, who wants to 'pretend' this is the senario, 'pretend' that happened.....when in reality, there's no way it would EVER happen.
But we ARE dealing with the reality of those who want to see us all dead or reformed to their ways. We ARE dealing with the reality of their continuing bombings all over the world. And they're NEVER going to give up....just because YOU 'pretend' if we only 'understood' them all would be well.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on September 12, 2005 01:30:52 PM new
One word answer to the thread title:
No.
There is no way to totally eliminate terrorists and while exterminating Muslims (exactly how would one do that anyway?) might get a few it in no way guarantees anything. If this was some hypothetical IQ test question scenerio:
Jack is a Muslim. Jack is a terrorist. All Muslims are terrorists. True or False?
To answer true there requires quite a leap. But even if the question was:
Jack is a Muslim. All Muslims are terrorists. Jack is a terrorist. True or False?
The answer there is true but even if you exterminate all Muslims, what do you do about the non-Muslim terrorists? To cover all the bases I guess you have to exterminate everyone and while I will agree that that would be a highly effective way to eliminate terrorists, I think I'd rather just kill Jack, since I know he's a terrorist.
posted on September 12, 2005 01:46:50 PM new
Red - What other groups of non-muslim terrorists are you referring to?
All the terrorist bombings in the other countries have been tied to AQ - or they admitted to being supported by them.
I'm curious to know what 'other' groups you're speaking about.
Also, does your above statement mean that you disagreed with our bombing in Afghanistan after the 9-11 attacks on our Nation?
Because, if you did agree with our actions, then protecting Israel or ourselves and again taking retaliation against those who attacked us, is imo, is no different.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on September 12, 2005 04:41:56 PM new
What was T. McVey? Should think he could be classified as a terrorist and might have gone on to commit other acts if he was not caught. I understand that he was a disciple of a neo Nazi group.
buyhigh
posted on September 12, 2005 09:21:56 PM new
Yes, T.McVie was a terrorist. He was a member of a radical militia group who wanted to over throw the government.
I can see how a eliminating the terrorists would be like trying to empty the ocean, but there has to be a way to send a strong signal to these people.
If we stop doing what we have been doing, then they win.
"I can see how a eliminating the terrorists would be like trying to empty the ocean, but there has to be a way to send a strong signal to these people. If we stop doing what we have been doing, then they win.
No, if we continue "what we've been doing" they will win. Besides being unprepared to achieve or even define a goal in Iraq we now have demonstrated to the world that we are unprepared for a terrorist attack in our country. Those are weak signals...not strong ones.
posted on September 13, 2005 06:14:42 AM newWhat other groups of non-muslim terrorists are you referring to?
While Muslim extremists make up the bulk of known terrorists groups there are plenty of non-muslim groups such as:
Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army
Continuity Irish Republican Army
National Liberation Army
Real IRA
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA)
Revolutionary Organization 17 November
Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front
United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia
Not to mention homegrown organizations like the KKK or wacked-out militia groups who have committed smaller scale acts of terrorism for years. The big stuff in recent years certainly goes to the radical Islamists but my definition of terrorism also includes the little guys.
Also, does your above statement mean that you disagreed with our bombing in Afghanistan after the 9-11 attacks on our Nation?
Huh? I'm not sure where that question comes from. I am and always will be in favor of hunting down terrorists and killing them. That has nothing to do with the fact that I do not support the genocide of large groups of people in the hopes of getting terrorists. In other words, it is not acceptable to me to kill a group of 100 people if we know that 10 of those people are terrorists - just not which ten.
Because, if you did agree with our actions, then protecting Israel or ourselves and again taking retaliation against those who attacked us, is imo, is no different
I have no problem taking actions against those who have attacked us. However, taking actions against terrorists who have attacked us and commiting genocide against all muslims in the world are two very different things.
posted on September 13, 2005 06:30:06 AM new
Replaymedia...I left nothing open. The question should be why you continue to support a foreign policy that has failed so miserably.
The first and most important step is to end foreign occupation. Throughout history foreign military occupation has been linked to terrorism. One example of that kind of conflict is the Israeli military occupatiion of Gaza and the West Bank. Another is the Russia/Chechnya conflict.
The U.S must end the occupation of Iraq as soon as possible.
Note....The humiliation of military occupation causes terrorism! Put yourself in the place of helpless victims of our invasion and think about how you would feel if a foreign power invaded our country.
