merged threads on beheading in egypt

[MtnBiker]

After all of that I'm still wondering who PaulFrank is?

 

[007]

Hmmmmm.... here I am starting out reading this thread, from the beginning no less, expecting to engage in debate about the beheading, and getting a good mojo going after reading dillo's crap, only to find there are twenty some pages, and the last pages are nothing but "sexual patty cake".

What the hell happened here?

I guess "cutting someone's head off" isn't important enough to hold anyone's attention......

 

[MtnBiker]

The thread was derailed by spidermantuba, but then he was derailed.

 

[007]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Did you miss some pages Pale? it was pretty heated until the end!

Yes "Sir" I did. I got so pissed reading page after page of dillo saying what we've been doing in the war agaisnt terror is failing, I couldn't stand it any longer. So after about ten pages of reading, and the page counter just kept going up, I hit "last page" to find out the last page was page number 6,759,771,030,419. I guess I missed out on a lot.

 

[007]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
The thread was derailed by spidermantuba, but then he was derailed.

Did he get banned, or just changed the subject?

 

[007]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
He lost his battle with the board! he was lynched!

Think he'd have rather been "DECAPITATED" as to lynched?

 

[Patriot]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
Hmmmmm.... here I am starting out reading this thread, from the beginning no less, expecting to engage in debate about the beheading, and getting a good mojo going after reading dillo's crap, only to find there are twenty some pages, and the last pages are nothing but "sexual patty cake".

What the hell happened here?

I guess "cutting someone's head off" isn't important enough to hold anyone's attention......

The sexual patty cake was my fault. I needed to chill stupid spidy out. He was a head case!

 

[007]

Well just to get my two cents worth in.....

Hey, Pale Rider, what are your feelings on the decapitation?

Well I'll tell ya, first, my much needs to get out response to dilloduck and his ranting that our fight against terrorism isn't working.... since 9/11, how many terror attacks have there been in America? None. Is our present policy against terrorist working then? Yes it is. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. It only takes a moron not to.

As far as the decapitation goes, comparing it to some Iraqi prisoners that were made to get naked and humiliated, there is no comparison that can be done in this universe. One is a few people that just got a little out of hand. The other is BARBARIC, SATANIC, BLOOD LUSTING, UNIMAGINABLE, KILLING!! I am GREATLY PISSED OFF at ANYONE that would even ATTEMPT at making a point comparing the two.

I think it's time to start making parking lots in Iraq. Take the good people that want a new start at a good country, move them off somewhere out of harms way, and start carpet bombing all the rest. KILL ALL OF THESE KILLING MACHINES BEFORE THEY KILL ANYMORE OF US!!

Simple. Clean. We're done. Everybody can go home now.

 

[007]

Originally posted by Patriot
The sexual patty cake was my fault. I needed to chill stupid spidy out. He was a head case!

You're a naughty girl..... :

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Patriot
The sexual patty cake was my fault. I needed to chill stupid spidy out. He was a head case!

Yes, I agree with Pale. Naughty girl Go to my room!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by spillmind
oh really? great job dealing with this tyranny, man! fine mess we've made!!!! how could we have done any worse?!!! nuking the area?

diff between you and i that I DON'T STRIVE FOR SEGREGATION. i don't demonize those who don't agree with me. i don't focus on them being the problem. i focus on the problem BEING THE PROBLEM.

what do you say we work TOGETHER to come up with a solution???!!

I don't strive for segregation. I pinpoint the general things libs believe, that's not villainization. Working together is not the end all, be all, solution to everything. That's three, you're out.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by nycflasher
The execution is sicko fuck terrorists fault.
But yeah, the fact tat Iraqi prisoners have been tortured since January doesn't help.
This war is doing little for our credibility overseas, in general, IMO. But I suppose the point is to defeat the terrorists... it's not a popularity contest.

But, you know, global politics really is a popularity contest. One that we are not winning right now.

What would make us most loved and popular is if we just dismantled our military and purposefully destroyed all our multinational corporations. Think of how loved we would be then. Do you see how foolish this line of thinking is?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Yes, and I believe Bush will be removed from office.
The uglier things get in Iraq the more the people of the United States will question their leader for his decision to invade Iraq. The people don't question the decision to go after terrorists, but they question Bush's bloodlust...

No they don't. That's why bush will win by a landslide.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
What would make us most loved and popular is if we just dismantled our military and purposefully destroyed all our multinational corporations. Think of how loved we would be then. Do you see how foolish this line of thinking is?

Huh? You calling me foolish?
I'm not saying we need to strive to be most loved, I'm saying it's "bad for business" to alienate the international community. I'm saying that reputation counts for something when bargaining at an international level.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

How we are at risk of losing:

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200405070832.asp

May 07, 2004, 8:32 a.m.
Our Weird Way of War
Our enemies know us only too well.

By Victor Davis Hanson

The wars since September 11 have once more revealed the superiority of Western arms. Afghanistan may be 7,000 miles away, cold, high, and full of clans, warlords, and assorted folk who have historically enjoyed killing foreign interlopers for blood sport, but somehow a few thousand Americans went over there and took out the invincible Taliban in eight weeks. What followed was not perfect, but Mr. Karzai offers far more hope than a Mullah Omar — and without half of Afghanistan ceded over as a terrorist sanctuary to plan another September 11.




Iraq is a long way away too. And the neighborhood is especially eerie, with the likes of hostile Syria and Iran, and triangulators on the dole like Jordan and Egypt. When we become ecstatic because a megalomaniac like Khaddafi says he's taken a hiatus from nuclear acquisition, you can see that good news over there is rare indeed.

Add in the hysteria over oil, three decades of the Baathist nightmare, and a potpourri of terrorists, and the idea of even getting near Iraq seems crazy. Yet we defeated Saddam in less than three weeks — in far less time than the 125- to 225-day conflict originally predicted by many Pentagon planners. True, the year-long reconstruction has often been depressing and bloody; but here we are a year later with some hope for a government better than Saddam set to take power. Success, remember, need not be defined as perfection, but simply by leaving things far better than they were.

Despite the tragedy of nearly 600 American combat dead, we did not see thousands of American fatalities, millions of refugees, burning oil wells, and the other assorted Dante-esque scenarios that were promised before the war. In other words, distance, climate, weather, the foul nature of the enemy — all those and more challenges were predictably trumped by the U.S. military, which cannot be defeated on the field of battle by any present force in existence.

Yet will we always see political successes follow from our military triumphs? Hardly — and for a variety of reasons. We are confronted with the paradox that our new military's short wars rarely inflict enough damage on the fabric of a country to establish a sense of general defeat — or the humiliation often necessary for a change of heart and acceptance of change. In the messy follow-ups to these brief and militarily precise wars, it is hard to muster patience and commitment from an American public plagued with attention-deficit problems and busy with better things to do than give fist-shaking Iraqis $87 billion.

Still, we must give proper credit to our enemies for our present problems in Iraq and indeed in the so-called war against terror in general. The fundamentalists and holdover fascists are as adroit off the conventional battlefield as they were incompetent on it. If Middle Eastern fanatics cannot field tens of thousands to meet the United States in battle, they can at least offer up a few hundred spooky assassins, car bombers, and suicide killers seeking to achieve through repulsion what they otherwise could not through arms.

Thus while hundreds of thousands of Saddam's soldiers ran — as Egyptians, Syrians, and Jordanians did from the Israelis in five wars — hundreds most certainly did not once the rules of war changed to the protocols of peace. Recently we were within hours of smashing the resistance in Fallujah once we accepted war anew. But when the mujahedeen, Gollum-like, decided to slither out in the open, then in terror scampered to safety, then remerged on all fours defiant and barking when we stopped firing, our forbearance and fear of global-televised condemnation handed them a victory they did not earn. In short, we should have listened to Sam and strangled the creep on the spot.

But our problems are not just with the paradoxes of the fourth-dimensional, asymmetric warfare that the United States has dealt with since the fighting in the Philippines and knew so well in Vietnam.

No, the challenge again is that bin Laden, the al Qaedists, the Baathist remnants, and the generic radical Islamicists of the Middle East have mastered the knowledge of the Western mind. Indeed they know us far better than we do ourselves. Three years ago, if one had dared to suggest that a few terrorists could bring down the Spanish government and send their legion scurrying out of Iraq, we would have thought it impossible.

Who would have imagined that Americans could go, in a few weeks, from the terror of seeing two skyscrapers topple to civil discord over the diet and clothing of war in Guantanamo, some of whom were released only to turn up to shoot at us again on the battlefields of Afghanistan? Our grandfathers would have dubbed Arafat a gangster, and al Sadr a psychopathic faker; many of us in our infinite capacity for fairness and non-judgementalism deemed the one a statesman and the other a holy man.

So our enemies realize that the struggle, lost on the battlefield, can yet be won with images and rhetoric offered up to alter the mentality and erode the will of an affluent, leisured and consensual West. They grasp that we are not so much worried about being convicted of being illiberal as having the charge even raised in the first place.

The one caveat they have learned? Do not provoke us too dramatically to bring on an open shooting war, in which the Arab Street hysteria, empty threats on spec, and silly fatwas nos. 1 through 1,000 mean nothing against the U.S. Marines and Cobra gunships. Instead, their modus operandi is to push all the way up to war — now provoking, now backing down, sometimes threatening, sometimes weeping — the key being to see the struggle in the long duration as a war of attrition, if you will, rather than a brief contest of annihilation.

These rules of the strategy of exhaustion are complex, and yet have been nearly mastered by the radicals of the Middle East. First, shock the sensibilities of a Western society into utter despair at facing primordial enemies from the Dark Ages. The decapitation of a Daniel Pearl; the probing of charred bodies with sticks, whether in Iran in 1980 or Fallujah in 2004; the promise of torturing Japanese hostages — all this is designed to make the Western suburbanite change channels and head to the patio, mumbling either, "How can we fight such barbarians" or — better yet — "Why would we wish to?"

If, on occasion, an exasperated and furious West sinks to the same level — renegade prisoner guards gratuitously humiliating or torturing naked Iraqi prisoners on tape — all the better, as proof that the elevated pretensions of Western decency and humanity are but a sham. A single violation of civility, a momentary lapse in humanism and in the new world of Western cultural relativism and moral equivalence, presto, the West loses its carefully carved-out moral high ground as it engages not merely in much needed self-critique and scrutiny, but reaches a feeding frenzy that evolves to outright cultural cannibalism.

For someone in a coffee-house in Brussels the idea that Bush apologizes for a dozen or so prison guards makes him the same as or worse than Saddam and his sons shooting prisoners for sport — moral equivalence lapped up by the state-controlled and censored Arab media that is largely responsible for the collective Middle East absence of rage over the exploding, decapitating, and incinerating of Western civilians in its midst.

Key here is our own acceptance of such moral asymmetries. Storming the Church of the Nativity is a misdemeanor in the Western press; shelling a minaret full of shooters is a felony. Blowing up Westerners in Saudi Arabia or Jordan is de rigueur; asking Muslims to take off their scarves while in French schools is a casus belli. If Afghanistan has roads, a benevolent man as president, and al Qaedists on the run, call it a failure because Mr. Karzai has not been able, FDR-like, to tour the countryside in a convertible limousine waving to crowds.

Institutionalized cowardice plays a role as well in this weird way of war: Call the few dozen dead in a West Bank town the wages of Jeningrad or the fire-fighting in Fallujah an atrocity, but don't utter a peep about the 80,000 dead in Chechnya or the flattening of Grozny. The Russians are not quite folk like the Israelis or Americans. They really don't care much if you hate them; they are likely to do some pretty scary things if you press them; they don't have too much money to shake down; they don't put you on cable news to yell at their citizenry; and you wouldn't really wish to emigrate there for a teaching fellowship anyway.

The moral of all this? The West can defeat the enemy on the battlefield, but in distant and much-caricatured wars on the dirty ground it can only win when it has leaders who can convince a fickle public into sacrificing, being ridiculed, and putting up with inevitable short-term disappointment that is the price of long-term security and stability — a sacrifice that in turn will never be acknowledged as such by the very people who are its beneficiaries both here and abroad.

How weird is our way of war! When we embrace Clintonian bombing — in Kosovo, Serbia, or in Iraq — and kill thousands, America sleeps: few of our guys killed, so who cares how many of theirs? Out of sight, out of mind. Yet when we take the trouble to sort out the messy moral calculus and go in on the ground shooting and getting shot, then suddenly the Left cries war crimes and worse — so strong is this Western disease of wishing to be perfect rather than merely good. Such is the self-induced burden for all those who would be gods rather than mere mortals.

What then are we to do when choices since September 11 have always been between bad and worse? We at least must have enough sense not to stand down and let Iraq become Lebanonized, Talibanized, or Iranicized, even though when all is said and done Americans will be blamed for bringing something better to the region. And yes, we need more democracy, not less, in Iraq and the surrounding Middle East in general.

We have to return to an audacious and entirely unpredictable combat mode; put on a happy, aw-shucks face while annihilating utterly the Baathist remnants and Sadr's killers; attribute this success to the new Iraqi government and its veneer of an army for its own 'miraculous' courage; ignore the incoming rounds of moral hypocrisy on Iraq from Europe (past French and German oil deals and arms sales), the Arab League (silence over Iraqi holocausts, cheating on sanctions), and the U.N. (Oil-for-Food debacle); explain to an exasperated American people why other people hate us for who we are rather than what we do; and apologize sincerely and forcefully once — not gratuitously and zillions of times — for the rare transgression.

Do all that and we can really complete this weird peace in Iraq.

 

[dilloduck]

Rider get your shit straight here on who said the war an terrorism wasnt working. It sure as hell wasnt me. It was spilly who got yout dander up. I KNOW how many dead terrorists are over there and they won't be killing anyone any more. I'm pissed about our damn media and those who but into their BS

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
Well just to get my two cents worth in.....

Hey, Pale Rider, what are your feelings on the decapitation?

Well I'll tell ya, first, my much needs to get out response to dilloduck and his ranting that our fight against terrorism isn't working.... since 9/11, how many terror attacks have there been in America? None. Is our present policy against terrorist working then? Yes it is. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. It only takes a moron not to.

It's difficult to validate this statement when there were 7 years between WTC attacks, or attacks on our home soil, and there have only been 2.5 years since 9/11.

As far as the decapitation goes, comparing it to some Iraqi prisoners that were made to get naked and humiliated, there is no comparison that can be done in this universe. One is a few people that just got a little out of hand. The other is BARBARIC, SATANIC, BLOOD LUSTING, UNIMAGINABLE, KILLING!! I am GREATLY PISSED OFF at ANYONE that would even ATTEMPT at making a point comparing the two.

then prepare to be pissed off. until we decide to understand that theres a huge culture difference all we're going to do is up the ante with each other, more violence, more hatred, and more killing. On our part, its more than just a 'few people that got a little out of hand', its a blot and stain on our military's honor, integrity, and professionalism and its also an affront to their culture. On their hand its a cowardly, heinous, barbaric act that requires bloody retribution.

I think it's time to start making parking lots in Iraq. Take the good people that want a new start at a good country, move them off somewhere out of harms way, and start carpet bombing all the rest. KILL ALL OF THESE KILLING MACHINES BEFORE THEY KILL ANYMORE OF US!!

how are we supposed to do that when we can't hardly tell who's with us and who's not?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Huh? You calling me foolish?
I'm not saying we need to strive to be most loved, I'm saying it's "bad for business" to alienate the international community. I'm saying that reputation counts for something when bargaining at an international level.

You know what else is bad for business? Global terrorism.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
It's difficult to validate this statement when there were 7 years between WTC attacks, or attacks on our home soil, and there have only been 2.5 years since 9/11.



then prepare to be pissed off. until we decide to understand that theres a huge culture difference all we're going to do is up the ante with each other, more violence, more hatred, and more killing. On our part, its more than just a 'few people that got a little out of hand', its a blot and stain on our military's honor, integrity, and professionalism and its also an affront to their culture. On their hand its a cowardly, heinous, barbaric act that requires bloody retribution.



how are we supposed to do that when we can't hardly tell who's with us and who's not?

An affront to their culture? Are you serious with shit, dk?

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
You know what else is bad for business? Global terrorism.

Agreed. That's bad for humanity.
RWA=Master of the obvious.