What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Former Mossad chief: Kill Ahmadinejad

Shogun

Free: Mudholes Stomped
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
30,528
Reaction score
2,257
Points
1,045
Former Mossad chief: Kill Ahmadinejad
By JPOST STAFF AND AP


Western countries must unite in an effort to assassinate Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former head of the Mossad Meir Amit said on Wednesday night.

"Even though in the past I have been opposed to assassinating Arab leaders, this case is different because it alone is the center of the nuclear issue," Amit told the weekly Kfar Chabad magazine set be published on Thursday.

Amit said he did not perceive an existential danger to Israel following Iran's nuclear development - "but that is only on condition that we do something about it."

The former Mossad chief went on to say that the nuclear facility in Dimona presented a deterrent against Ahmadinejad's intentions. "I think that this is the only reason that he won't attack us," he said.

Meanwhile, Iran has started enriching small amounts of uranium gas at its underground plant and is already running more than 1,300 of the machines used in the enrichment process, according to an International Atomic Energy Agency document obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press.

The confidential document - a letter to Iranian officials from a senior IAEA staff member - also protests an Iranian decision to prevent agency inspectors to visit the country's heavy water facility that, when built, will produce plutonium. Enriched uranium and plutonium can both be used for the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

The letter, signed by IAEA Deputy Director General Olli Heinonen and dated April 18 - Thursday - said the agency wanted to "take note of the information provided by Iran ... that Iran has put into operation" 1,312 centrifuges - the machines used to spin the gas into enriched uranium.

The letter also cited Iranian information to the agency that "some UF6 is being fed" into the centrifuges, referring to the uranium gas that can be enriched to levels potent enough to be used for nuclear arms.

Iran says it wants to enrich only to lower levels suitable to generate nuclear power. But suspicions about its ultimate intentions, after nearly two decades of nuclear secrecy exposed only four years ago, have led to UN Security Council sanctions for its refusal to freeze its enrichment program.

It was unclear what the purpose of the uranium gas feed was. A diplomat accredited to the IAEA, who demanded anonymity because he was disclosing confidential information, said the operation appeared to be part of "stress tests" meant see if the machines were running smoothly.

But he and another diplomat said that, even if the operation was not meant to enrich large amounts of uranium, it appeared to be the last step before larger-scale enrichment begins.
Last week, Iran said it had begun operating 3,000 centrifuges at its Natanz facility - nearly 10 times the previously known number. The US, Britain, France and others criticized the announcement, but experts - and several world powers - expressed skepticism that Iran's claims were true.

Still the letter reflected a swift advance in the program. A little more than two weeks ago, diplomats familiar with Iran's nuclear dossier had said Teheran was running only a little more than 600 centrifuges, and had not introduced any uranium gas into them.

Its heavy water enrichment facilities at Arak also are under suspicion, because the plant produces plutonium, which can also be used in an arms program. Iran argues it needs the plant for medical research, despite a Security Council demand that it also freeze construction at Arak.
When it is completed within the next decade, Arak will produce enough plutonium for two bombs a year.

Iran last month announced it was unilaterally abrogating part of its Safeguards Agreements linked with the IAEA under which Teheran is obligated to report to the agency six months before it introduces nuclear material of any kind into any facility. In his letter, Heinonen suggested that Iran invoked this move in denying his inspectors the right to visit the Arak facility, but argued it was illegal, because such agreements "cannot be modified unilaterally."

Beyond that, Heinonen said, IAEA inspectors should be allowed to visit Arak because the section abrogated by Iran had to do with early provision of design information of new nuclear facilities and "not to the frequency or timing of" agency inspections to verify information on design already provided by Iran.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1176152828140&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
 
OP
Shogun

Shogun

Free: Mudholes Stomped
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
30,528
Reaction score
2,257
Points
1,045
So.....


assasination and terrorism is OK when OUR side does it?

I ask you, if this exact article were written by muslims would you have already pounced on it, the author, the publishing entity AND culture that produced it instead of already making excuses for Israeli sentiment calling for an ASSINATION?

:eusa_wall:
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
23,253
Reaction score
8,110
Points
910
Location
Charleston, SC
So.....


assasination and terrorism is OK when OUR side does it?

I ask you, if this exact article were written by muslims would you have already pounced on it, the author, the publishing entity AND culture that produced it instead of already making excuses for Israeli sentiment calling for an ASSINATION?

:eusa_wall:

Are you talking to yourself? You posted the article, then you asked yourself the question? You have left me confused. :confused:
 
OP
Shogun

Shogun

Free: Mudholes Stomped
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
30,528
Reaction score
2,257
Points
1,045
I posted the article for referance and I posted my question for debate...


did you have a comment?
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
23,253
Reaction score
8,110
Points
910
Location
Charleston, SC
I posted the article for referance and I posted my question for debate...

did you have a comment?

Ah, okay.

Well, as an American who views Iran as, at the very least, a thorn in the side of the west and at the most a potential threat to Isreal, the interests of the U.S., it's allies, and the general population of the region, including the Iranian people, I understand the sentiment of the article's author and find it hard to disagree with. While I have, at times (usually out of frustration), advocated changing our (the U.S.) relationship with Israel for the over all stability of the region, I recognize that the Israelis do not have a friend in the vacinity. To the contrary, just about all of their neighbors want them wiped off the map. Sucks to be them.

Now, that being said, I can honestly say that had a similar article appeared in an Iranian newspaper and I had happened upon it, I would have more than likely posted it and held it up as an example of just what it is we in the west are up against. I would have pointed out the futility of trying to reason with Ahmadinejad and might have gone so far as to say we should just "take him out." He is a dangerous man controlled by dangerous men.

I am sure that the message boards in Iran are burning up with posts discussing the article you posted. All politics is local.

I do not advocate terrorist tactics, I find them deplorable. Political assassination, while despicable and unseemly, has been a fact of life since two tribes declared themselves seperate nations.

Some would argue that political assassination can spare the lives of thousand of soldiers, in some cases they may be right. I would only say they should look to Archduke Franz Ferdinand before setting a course of action.
 
OP
Shogun

Shogun

Free: Mudholes Stomped
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
30,528
Reaction score
2,257
Points
1,045
I appriciate that response.

I wish more people could discuss Israel and Palestine in such a fashion.


While I understand the position that Israel is in and sympathize with their position in the middle east I have to wonder how ironic it is to rationalize assasination while selling a war on terror...


It reminds me how ironic it is that the ONLY nation to ever rationalize using a nuke on CIVILIANS is the sme nation that wants to regulate who can and who cannot have nukes. OR, I daresay, splitting hairs with labels while condemning torture while rationalizing its use in "snatch and interrogate" operations... I have to wonder why a muslim in the mid east would consider what the west has to offer them while facing such a blatant hypocracy. If our leader were assasinated we would franzy and pounce on the nation that openly claimed it much like we pounced on the mid east after 9/11...


is it outlanding to expect iran to react any different? do we stand for righteousness and correct behaviour when dealing with enemies or do we act as our enemies and then rob ourselves of any moral authority while becoming just another thug on the street of the world?


If Israel can validate assasination then they are no better than those that assasinate them. Hell, if I were Iran and was ambivilent about Israel before this article I sure as hell would be just as ready to eliminate Israel just like America would, and has, done with those who issue open threats to OUR leaders. If Cuba issued this same manifesto about bush Im positive that we would have our hands in Havana within a year.


Israel needs to decide to rise above or to play in the same dirt as those they demonize as savages.... there is no two ways about it.
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
23,253
Reaction score
8,110
Points
910
Location
Charleston, SC
It's always easy to rationalize assassination, until it's your guy who becomes the target.
 
OP
Shogun

Shogun

Free: Mudholes Stomped
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
30,528
Reaction score
2,257
Points
1,045
EXACTLY!


I bet if an Iranian wrote this about an Israeli leader then it would be one more reason to label Iran a "terrorist state"....


I dunno...


I guess I just believe the turnabout is fairplay unless one side is selling a moral highroad... in which case they must stick to that high road or become just as bad as those that they are quick to demonize.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
So.....


assasination and terrorism is OK when OUR side does it?

I ask you, if this exact article were written by muslims would you have already pounced on it, the author, the publishing entity AND culture that produced it instead of already making excuses for Israeli sentiment calling for an ASSINATION?

:eusa_wall:

And he has called repeatedly for the eradication of Israel and the genocide of a people. That isn't an excuse ... its fact.

Was I one of those people he wishes to eradicate, I'd drop the hammer on him and his little gaggle of Mullah's in a heartbeat.
 

90K

Rookie
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
65
Points
0
Location
in the back of GW in foggy bottom
Who cares if a former Mossad chief said kill Ahmadinejad? Talk to any CIA field agent and they'll tell you things that will blow you away. Death and being a target is the way the world works. Every spy organization has its specific targets. And many of the spy networks work with each other in many cases. If someone gets dropped it is because someone higher up made the call. And I can assure you that if Israel wanted Ahmadinejad he'd be 6 foot under now. Nobody is untouchable in this world if they are in the spot light.
And about if Iran said anything to the original post they would be labeled as a terrorist network. And they'd get bombed into the stone ages by Israel just for good meassure.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
EXACTLY!


I bet if an Iranian wrote this about an Israeli leader then it would be one more reason to label Iran a "terrorist state"....


I dunno...


I guess I just believe the turnabout is fairplay unless one side is selling a moral highroad... in which case they must stick to that high road or become just as bad as those that they are quick to demonize.

You are arguing relativism without regard to your position. Looks good on paper, but where the rubber meets the road -- reality -- that man represents and is the mouthpiece for a regime that wishes to impose 7th century Sharia law on the world.

While one can argue flawed politics all they want, the fact is, Western democracy is superior in every way, and is based on indivudal freedom; whereas, Sharia law is based on individual and collective servitude. Didn't we once kill ourselves over the issue of involuntary servitude?

I'm on "our" side, and while I'm more than willing to live and let live, anything that poses a threat to our side is going down if I have anything to do with it.
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
23,253
Reaction score
8,110
Points
910
Location
Charleston, SC
Lest anyone misunderstand, I am neither outraged nor bothered by the idea of using assassination as a means to an end, I was just being honest about the concept of assassination as I see it. As 90K said, it is a fact of life, and as Gunny said, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. This alone would seem to be justification for taking him out while sparing casualties to the general population. After all, I haven't heard Israel calling for the destruction of any of it's neighbors, at least not publicly.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: 90K

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Lest anyone misunderstand, I am neither outraged nor bothered by the idea of using assassination as a means to an end, I was just being honest about the concept of assassination as I see it. As 90K said, it is a fact of life, and as Gunny said, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. This alone would seem to be justification for taking him out while sparing casualties to the general population. After all, I haven't heard Israel calling for the destruction of any of it's neighbors, at least not publicly.

I was not pointing a finger at an individual. I was pointing it at the relativist argument. Relativism has its place. Where it is used to confuse logic, common sense and/or one's loyalty, I draw the line.

World domination is the stated goal of radical islam, and Iran is a radical islamic regime. Understanding the point of view of extremists such as that is secondary to deciding whether or not you wish to lose the freedoms our society has and be subject to 7th century barbarism because they believe what they do.
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
23,253
Reaction score
8,110
Points
910
Location
Charleston, SC
I was not pointing a finger at an individual. I was pointing it at the relativist argument. Relativism has its place. Where it is used to confuse logic, common sense and/or one's loyalty, I draw the line.

I didn't think you were, I just want to make sure there was no confusion.

World domination is the stated goal of radical islam, and Iran is a radical islamic regime. Understanding the point of view of extremists such as that is secondary to deciding whether or not you wish to lose the freedoms our society has and be subject to 7th century barbarism because they believe what they do.

Agreed.
 
OP
Shogun

Shogun

Free: Mudholes Stomped
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
30,528
Reaction score
2,257
Points
1,045
And he has called repeatedly for the eradication of Israel and the genocide of a people. That isn't an excuse ... its fact.

Was I one of those people he wishes to eradicate, I'd drop the hammer on him and his little gaggle of Mullah's in a heartbeat.


if you consider the context of his concern over the history of the creation of israel... Again, if ATZLAN were created in the American southwest and repetedly demonized Americans what would you decide is a solution to get Texas back?

If he was so hellbent on killing jews for the sake of their jewishness... why are there jews living in Iran and other muslim nations?


moreso, if YOU just admitted that you would react violently to a percieved threat....


....why on earth would you expect him to act otherwise to the above article?
 
OP
Shogun

Shogun

Free: Mudholes Stomped
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
30,528
Reaction score
2,257
Points
1,045
I was not pointing a finger at an individual. I was pointing it at the relativist argument. Relativism has its place. Where it is used to confuse logic, common sense and/or one's loyalty, I draw the line.

World domination is the stated goal of radical islam, and Iran is a radical islamic regime. Understanding the point of view of extremists such as that is secondary to deciding whether or not you wish to lose the freedoms our society has and be subject to 7th century barbarism because they believe what they do.



extremism depends on your perspective, yes?

do you consider dropping two jukes on japanese civilians EXTREME? Do you consider rationalizing thousands of civilian muslim deaths in the mid east so that we dont fight on America soil EXTREME? Is assasination only EXTREME when OURS gets assasinated?

so, they are less worthy of human consideration because they dont have cable tv and wear nike shoes?

Im sure many would argue that the last 50 years of American global policy has been rather BARBARIC with all the napalm in vietnam to rationalized torture these days...


but you arent willing to consider such as less than noble because of your PERSPECTIVE, eh?


this type of closed minded "do as I say not as I do - go team at any cost" mentallity is what produced the trail of tears, gunny..


pretending that there isnt a double standard for Israel according to the golden excuse of the day wont help bring any muslims nations to our side...



..BUT.. bringing them to our side really isnt the point with all the military toys around just waiting for an excuse to kill, eh dude?


again, remind me what a civilian in hiroshima and nagasaki might have said about our 9/11 10 minutes before the bomb and compare that with what they might have said 10 minutes after the mushroom cloud...


perspective is a bitch.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
if you consider the context of his concern over the history of the creation of israel... Again, if ATZLAN were created in the American southwest and repetedly demonized Americans what would you decide is a solution to get Texas back?

If he was so hellbent on killing jews for the sake of their jewishness... why are there jews living in Iran and other muslim nations?


moreso, if YOU just admitted that you would react violently to a percieved threat....


....why on earth would you expect him to act otherwise to the above article?

Your hypothetical argument in regard to Southwestern US is just that. Americans get displaced everyday for nothing more than a new highway, or stadium. They don't turn around and begin a genocidal war against the cities that displace them.

You tell me ... if Jews live in Iran, why does Iran and it's terrorist surrogate Hezbollah call for destroying Israel and wiping Jews from the land?

First you would have to show how Israel is or ever has been a threat to Iran.

I wouldn't care how he reacted to the article. The second his little head came out of his gopher hole it'd receive a 7.62 mm "rennovation."
 
OP
Shogun

Shogun

Free: Mudholes Stomped
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
30,528
Reaction score
2,257
Points
1,045
Your hypothetical argument in regard to Southwestern US is just that. Americans get displaced everyday for nothing more than a new highway, or stadium. They don't turn around and begin a genocidal war against the cities that displace them.

You tell me ... if Jews live in Iran, why does Iran and it's terrorist surrogate Hezbollah call for destroying Israel and wiping Jews from the land?

First you would have to show how Israel is or ever has been a threat to Iran.

I wouldn't care how he reacted to the article. The second his little head came out of his gopher hole it'd receive a 7.62 mm "rennovation."


AND..


pre 1948 Israel was just a hypothetical... and look at the reality of that nation now. Are you telling me that the native popuation of the American continents are any less hellbent on claiming back their historic homes than jews were to reclaim Israel?

AMERICANS displaced? no, sir.. MEXICANS AND NATIVES, sir.. La Raza.. you know.. the people from whome youve heard a similar desire to reclaim land as weve heard in every rationalization for the state of Israel. What happened in Israel was hardly a case of emminant domain taking land for a public highway.

does the entire Native American wars during the early 70% of American history NOT reflect the same violence due to displacement as we find in the mid east? Should Mexicans IGNORE the fruits of a conflict with the US that gave us the American southwest? Would WE call for the assasination of a Mexican leader who successfuly led a coup of our southern borders?



"You tell me ... if Jews live in Iran, why does Iran and it's terrorist surrogate Hezbollah call for destroying Israel and wiping Jews from the land? "



uh, because it isnt simply hatred of jes as a race that motivates muslim nation like iran to rebuke Israel so much as a percieved invasion on land that was in their control until the formation of Israel? you know, exactly like how the US would react to losing 6 southern states if Atzlan became the reality that Israel did? Again, if iran simply hates jews then why would they tolorate jews living in iran and lebenon?

specifically, do you really think that iran would be calling for the removal of Israel if ISRAEL WERE LOCATED IN TEXAS OR EUROPE?

no.



and Id say that Israels sabre rattling and unwillingness to even remotley consider how muslims percieved the creation of israel, along with the nukes and backing of the west, a valid threat that we ourselves illustrated just as coldly to when we were busy with russia in the 80s... JUST LIKE we would consider ATZLAN a threat by its very creation after losing our southern border for the creation of a state for a people that has every right to claim the same validation as Israel uses to validate itself.


Is the golden rule merely a relativist arguement, gunny?



and...


you can fantasize about killing him all you need to since you dont have a monopoly on violent solutions and can be just as much the target of their dream to kill us too.. again, turnabout is fairplay, yes? Would you rationalize a muslim saying the same thing about bush with as much casual inconsideration?

or would THAT all of a sudden become terrorism?
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
extremism depends on your perspective, yes?

do you consider dropping two jukes on japanese civilians EXTREME? Do you consider rationalizing thousands of civilian muslim deaths in the mid east so that we dont fight on America soil EXTREME? Is assasination only EXTREME when OURS gets assasinated?

An act of violence that takes another's life is ALWAYS an extreme measure, regardless who does it. The real question here is: Is using an extreme meausre justified?

In your first example, we dropped two nukes on Japan. It was estimated it would cost 1M US lives to invade and take Japan. The tactic used was strategically sound to accomplish the mission: defeat Japan with least amount of loss to US lives.

In your second, it is also tactically and strategically sound to fight a war on someone else's soil rather than your own. Would you prefer those civilian casualties be US casualties?



so, they are less worthy of human consideration because they dont have cable tv and wear nike shoes?

The cold, hard fact is yes. When it comes to war, the lives of the enemy have less value than the lives of your own forces and/or your own civilians.

What kind of TV they watch or shoes they wear is irrelevant. The ideals you represent vs the ideals the enemy represents is what matters.


Im sure many would argue that the last 50 years of American global policy has been rather BARBARIC with all the napalm in vietnam to rationalized torture these days...

Torture has not been rationalized. The use of coersion has been. Here's some rationalization for you to think about ...

You're the Company Gunny. You capture an enemy combatant who can tell you how and where the forces he belongs to are deployed. You have a mission, and you are on a schedule. There are 150 Marines counting on YOU to bring them home alive so they can see Momma and the kids again.

Do you stick a Ka-Bar to that enemy soldiers throat and threaten to cut it if he doesn't talk?

Damned right you do. EVERY time.

NAPALM is an effective weapon. It's been used since the close of WWII.


but you arent willing to consider such as less than noble because of your PERSPECTIVE, eh?

Perspective? I'm not willing to place the concerns of my enemy before my own. I don't go out and choose these enemies. They choose me. I'm not willing to sacrifice my life nor what I believe in so my enemy can have his.

this type of closed minded "do as I say not as I do - go team at any cost" mentallity is what produced the trail of tears, gunny..

You're trying to confuse apples-n-oranges. There is no "do as I say not as I do, and relegating fighting for what you believe in to cheerleading is trivializing.

The Trail of Tears, was no more barbaric than US Civil War prison camps where the white man treated his own barbarically by today's standards.



pretending that there isnt a double standard for Israel according to the golden excuse of the day wont help bring any muslims nations to our side...

What double standard would that be?

I'd say since one of the US's stated goals is to support democracy world-wide, there is no double standard.

I'd say apologizing for a people who have thrived on nothing but hatred, murder and anti-semitism for 50+ years WOULD be a double standard wfor anyone who believes in democracy.



..BUT.. bringing them to our side really isnt the point with all the military toys around just waiting for an excuse to kill, eh dude?


again, remind me what a civilian in hiroshima and nagasaki might have said about our 9/11 10 minutes before the bomb and compare that with what they might have said 10 minutes after the mushroom cloud...

I already addressed this.


perspective is a bitch.

And apologizing for your enemy makes you a perfect fall guy for them, and when they're done with you, you're just as dead as the next body.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
AND..


pre 1948 Israel was just a hypothetical... and look at the reality of that nation now. Are you telling me that the native popuation of the American continents are any less hellbent on claiming back their historic homes than jews were to reclaim Israel?

The Jews wanted a homeland. The did not choose Israel. The UK did. They took what they could get.

The difference between the two is that Israel has fought and maintained it's territorial integrity and independence. Native American had no territorial integrity, and they did not win their wars.


AMERICANS displaced? no, sir.. MEXICANS AND NATIVES, sir.. La Raza.. you know.. the people from whome youve heard a similar desire to reclaim land as weve heard in every rationalization for the state of Israel. What happened in Israel was hardly a case of emminant domain taking land for a public highway.

Israel was given to the Jews as the result of a war. The principle of "to the victor go the spoils" , not the right of eminent domain was the justification.

does the entire Native American wars during the early 70% of American history NOT reflect the same violence due to displacement as we find in the mid east? Should Mexicans IGNORE the fruits of a conflict with the US that gave us the American southwest? Would WE call for the assasination of a Mexican leader who successfuly led a coup of our southern borders?

That would be an act of war, and you bet there'd be assassination plans in the works.



"You tell me ... if Jews live in Iran, why does Iran and it's terrorist surrogate Hezbollah call for destroying Israel and wiping Jews from the land? "



uh, because it isnt simply hatred of jes as a race that motivates muslim nation like iran to rebuke Israel so much as a percieved invasion on land that was in their control until the formation of Israel? you know, exactly like how the US would react to losing 6 southern states if Atzlan became the reality that Israel did? Again, if iran simply hates jews then why would they tolorate jews living in iran and lebenon?

specifically, do you really think that iran would be calling for the removal of Israel if ISRAEL WERE LOCATED IN TEXAS OR EUROPE?

no.

If Iran was an ideological ally and provided support for Israel in your hypothetical, yes, it would.

and Id say that Israels sabre rattling and unwillingness to even remotley consider how muslims percieved the creation of israel, along with the nukes and backing of the west, a valid threat that we ourselves illustrated just as coldly to when we were busy with russia in the 80s... JUST LIKE we would consider ATZLAN a threat by its very creation after losing our southern border for the creation of a state for a people that has every right to claim the same validation as Israel uses to validate itself.

That's ridiculous. Israel has never fought other than a defensive war and has been beset upon since it's beginning. Sabre rattling? I think not.


Is the golden rule merely a relativist arguement, gunny?

The golden rule is irrelevant. It becomes so when others set out to do unto you by force someithing you are opposed to.


and...


you can fantasize about killing him all you need to since you dont have a monopoly on violent solutions and can be just as much the target of their dream to kill us too.. again, turnabout is fairplay, yes? Would you rationalize a muslim saying the same thing about bush with as much casual inconsideration?

or would THAT all of a sudden become terrorism?

I don't need to fantasize about killing anyone. Violence is a means of last resort, but when it is a means a last resort, I'm damned good at what I'm trained to do.

That "turnabout is fairplay" stuff is for armchair quarterbacks. I fully-expect my enemy to be trying just a hard to kill me as I am him. When it comes down to THAT point, all your politics and hypotheticals are discarded as so much rubbish.

The difference I am trying to illustrate regarding the self-destructiveness of your concern for your enemy's ideology is this:

While you would be hesitating to kill, identifying with his personal malfunctions, giving him the opportunity to kill you, I'd have already dropped his ass at a 1000m.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top