Kidnapped Russian Embassy Workers Slaughtered In Iraq

[Annie]

Al Quaida taking credit. The video and more info can be found here:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005436.htm

 

[jimnyc]

Al Quaida taking credit. The video and more info can be found here:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005436.htm

More lives that should have been saved by nuking that hellhole from the beginning like I suggested. Sucks for their families and I feel for them. More proof that these scumbags are just no better than dirt.

 

[T-Bor]

Typical republican thought process. Lets Just drop a nuke and kill everyone in the country, doesnt matter that most of the country is innocent. Doesnt it seem ironic that you talk about saving lives by nuking a whole country when in fact you would be taking more innocent lives than you could ever imagine.

More lives that should have been saved by nuking that hellhole from the beginning like I suggested. Sucks for their families and I feel for them. More proof that these scumbags are just no better than dirt.

 

[jimnyc]

Typical republican thought process. Lets Just drop a nuke and kill everyone in the country, doesnt matter that most of the country is innocent. Doesnt it seem ironic that you talk about saving lives by nuking a whole country when in fact you would be taking more innocent lives than you could ever imagine.

I tend to think about saving American lives first, and when possible how we can save innocent lives. I'd sacrifice a billion Iraqi's for the life of JUST ONE American soldier. That's my opinion and probably worth about as much as you paid to read it.

Nitpick through the crowd and be nice to them. Be nice after capture and politely ask help from them. Ask for ID in a shootout first to make sure no civilians are involved. When you don't know what to do, blame the republicans, and cut and run. - Typical liberal wimp out excuse

 

[trobinett]

Typical republican thought process. Lets Just drop a nuke and kill everyone in the country, doesnt matter that most of the country is innocent. Doesnt it seem ironic that you talk about saving lives by nuking a whole country when in fact you would be taking more innocent lives than you could ever imagine.

The IRONIC part my good man, is that you would question such a comment.

Nuking is an expression, but then, YOU knew that, which is why you, and your brethren are so pathetic.

 

[T-Bor]

So you would sacrifice the life of a Billion INNOCENT Iraqis for the life one American Soldier ?? You sir just lost all credibility. Of course you are the type of people that I expected voted for Bush. Typical uneducated republican right here folks - jimnyc.

I tend to think about saving American lives first, and when possible how we can save innocent lives. I'd sacrifice a billion Iraqi's for the life of JUST ONE American soldier. That's my opinion and probably worth about as much as you paid to read it.

Nitpick through the crowd and be nice to them. Be nice after capture and politely ask help from them. Ask for ID in a shootout first to make sure no civilians are involved. When you don't know what to do, blame the republicans, and cut and run. - Typical liberal wimp out excuse

 

[T-Bor]

Uh why dont you look at his comment above and then tell me it was just an expression.

The IRONIC part my good man, is that you would question such a comment.

Nuking is an expression, but then, YOU knew that, which is why you, and your brethren are so pathetic.

 

[jimnyc]

So you would sacrifice the life of a Billion INNOCENT Iraqis for the life one American Soldier ?? You sir just lost all credibility. Of course you are the type of people that I expected voted for Bush. Typical uneducated republican right here folks - jimnyc.

I had credibility with you to begin with? YeeHa!

Allow me to change my thoughts. I would sacrifice the lives of a billion Iraqi's AND YOU for the life of one American soldier.

And you wanna know what else? I would be thrilled if they let me push the button!

 

[Gunny]

Typical republican thought process. Lets Just drop a nuke and kill everyone in the country, doesnt matter that most of the country is innocent. Doesnt it seem ironic that you talk about saving lives by nuking a whole country when in fact you would be taking more innocent lives than you could ever imagine.

Define "innocent." Turning a blind eye to terrorism because while you aren't quite willing to murder for your religion, you have been taught from birth that what AQ and other militant, fundamental Islamic groups are doing is right?

By doing nothing, they share the blood on their more homicidal brethren's hands.

 

[Gunny]

So you would sacrifice the life of a Billion INNOCENT Iraqis for the life one American Soldier ?? You sir just lost all credibility. Of course you are the type of people that I expected voted for Bush. Typical uneducated republican right here folks - jimnyc.

And of course YOU would sacrifice a billion US soldiers in your quest to villify Republicans.

 

[T-Bor]

Why dont you all stop dodging what he wrote and man up. He said he would sacrifice a Billion Iraqis, ill assume he means non-terrorists , to save one American life and the republicans on this board dont think thats an insane thought ? Thats Hitler-esque to me. Well anyways thats why you arent President , thank god. Im sure you would win big brownie points with the general populous with that statement dont you think ? NOT. I really think you know you are an idiot but are just afraid to admit it. These forums can be quite humorus sometimes.

 

[Annie]

Why dont you all stop dodging what he wrote and man up. He said he would sacrifice a Billion Iraqis, ill assume he means non-terrorists , to save one American life and the republicans on this board dont think thats an insane thought ? Thats Hitler-esque to me. Well anyways thats why you arent President , thank god. Im sure you would win big brownie points with the general populous with that statement dont you think ? NOT. I really think you know you are an idiot but are just afraid to admit it. These forums can be quite humorus sometimes.

Considering we do not have a 1:1b ratio going on over there, we'll assume Jim was using hyperbole. You on the other hand, are just nuts.

 

[Gunny]

Why dont you all stop dodging what he wrote and man up. He said he would sacrifice a Billion Iraqis, ill assume he means non-terrorists , to save one American life and the republicans on this board dont think thats an insane thought ? Thats Hitler-esque to me. Well anyways thats why you arent President , thank god. Im sure you would win big brownie points with the general populous with that statement dont you think ? NOT. I really think you know you are an idiot but are just afraid to admit it. These forums can be quite humorus sometimes.

We can play this ALL day. How about YOU stop dodging what YOU wrote? Your statement is presumptuously arrogant, as it assumes that all members feel obligated to comment, that all conservative members are Republicans, and that all conservative members who are Republicans feel that one US servicemember is worth a billion Iraqis, and that all people who feel one US servicemember is worth a billion Iraqis voted for Bush.

Quite the crystal ball you have, Mr Wizard.

Unfortunately, you tied a bunch of assumptions together that are not necessarily relevant/mutaually inclusive of one another.

What is typical of a blind partisan hack such as yourself, is you will beleive any lie your party instructs you to, and attempt to villify anyone who does not, and trot out every bullshit accusation the left has in an effort to defend your presumptuous comment.

We are Americans. If you do not value the lives of the members of the society that protects your big mouth and in which you hide, feel free to move your crappy little self to one more suitable to your political sensitivities.

 

[jimnyc]

Why dont you all stop dodging what he wrote and man up. He said he would sacrifice a Billion Iraqis, ill assume he means non-terrorists , to save one American life and the republicans on this board dont think thats an insane thought ? Thats Hitler-esque to me. Well anyways thats why you arent President , thank god. Im sure you would win big brownie points with the general populous with that statement dont you think ? NOT. I really think you know you are an idiot but are just afraid to admit it. These forums can be quite humorus sometimes.

Are you saying I'm an idiot because you don't agree with my beliefs?

 

[jimnyc]

Now I feel bad. I didn't want to upset 'ol T-Bor with my comments. He already thinks I'm an idiot, I hope he doesn't think I just don't like Iraqi's. Because I would happily sacrifice a few billion from Iran, North Korea & Afghanistan as well, and all of that for JUST ONE American soldiers life.

I'm really educated, T-Bor, although I haven't always used my skills for what most would consider 'best use'. Rather than standing around playing the internal blame game for the next election, I would prefer to stand tall and go on the offensive against these scumbags before they even have a chance to do anything. Give 'em all 3 days notice and all must pass through checkpoints upon leaving. After vacated, obliterate the shithole until nothing remains. If you can't leave the country within 3 days, well then I guess you're a goner.

And I might be an idiot, but I'm smart enough to know we can send a shitload of battleships and carriers in from the Indian Ocean and right up between all these bastards. Remove troops and spend money on missiles and nukes. Now you can end the war right there from the ships with no casualties to our American soldiers. Maybe flip one over Pakistan into China too as I'm not too fond of those bastards either right now (they're shitty drivers while in the left lane). And upon their return trip they can launch away at the frogs once they hit the North Atlantic. Imagine that, 3-5 days and a shitload of artillery and all of our problems are solved!

Now why would you think I'm an idiot? I am showing the way to end the war with 0 American casualties and an extremely high terrorist death rate.

I'm not president, nor am I a general, and I have no affiliation to the military. BUT, if I were to join, that would be my plan.

Maybe you think I'm an idiot because I sound indifferent to the innocents that may lose their lives? So damn what. We play by 'their' rules or the liberal rules and we will lose too damn many American lives. You enter a war to win, to kill and/or capture your enemy. Do so with little collateral damage and abide by rules of engagement. When you have an enemy that uses those very rules to enhance their position, YOU change your position and strike them hard.

Or would you prefer for them to dictate our positioning and we immediately withdraw and give a formal apology?

Sorry, I seem to care for American lives more at this point. I'm not saying cut their heads off and make them all suffer, just a few hot seconds of a flash is all they will feel, if they're lucky.

5
4
3
2
1



BOOM

 

[Gunny]

Now I feel bad. I didn't want to upset 'ol T-Bor with my comments. He already thinks I'm an idiot, I hope he doesn't think I just don't like Iraqi's. Because I would happily sacrifice a few billion from Iran, North Korea & Afghanistan as well, and all of that for JUST ONE American soldiers life.

I'm really educated, T-Bor, although I haven't always used my skills for what most would consider 'best use'. Rather than standing around playing the internal blame game for the next election, I would prefer to stand tall and go on the offensive against these scumbags before they even have a chance to do anything. Give 'em all 3 days notice and all must pass through checkpoints upon leaving. After vacated, obliterate the shithole until nothing remains. If you can't leave the country within 3 days, well then I guess you're a goner.

And I might be an idiot, but I'm smart enough to know we can send a shitload of battleships and carriers in from the Indian Ocean and right up between all these bastards. Remove troops and spend money on missiles and nukes. Now you can end the war right there from the ships with no casualties to our American soldiers. Maybe flip one over Pakistan into China too as I'm not too fond of those bastards either right now (they're shitty drivers while in the left lane). And upon their return trip they can launch away at the frogs once they hit the North Atlantic. Imagine that, 3-5 days and a shitload of artillery and all of our problems are solved!

Now why would you think I'm an idiot? I am showing the way to end the war with 0 American casualties and an extremely high terrorist death rate.

I'm not president, nor am I a general, and I have no affiliation to the military. BUT, if I were to join, that would be my plan.

Maybe you think I'm an idiot because I sound indifferent to the innocents that may lose their lives? So damn what. We play by 'their' rules or the liberal rules and we will lose too damn many American lives. You enter a war to win, to kill and/or capture your enemy. Do so with little collateral damage and abide by rules of engagement. When you have an enemy that uses those very rules to enhance their position, YOU change your position and strike them hard.

Or would you prefer for them to dictate our positioning and we immediately withdraw and give a formal apology?

Sorry, I seem to care for American lives more at this point. I'm not saying cut their heads off and make them all suffer, just a few hot seconds of a flas is all they will feel, if they're lucky.

5
4
3
2
1



BOOM

There is nothing idiotic about fighting a war to win. While I'm not sure I agree with your tactics, I DO agree with your strategy.

 

[CSM]

There is nothing idiotic about fighting a war to win. While I'm not sure I agree with your tactics, I DO agree with your strategy.

Tactics are always open for discussion (right up to the point you have to execute).

 

[trobinett]

T-Bor, you don't think for a minute, that IF the people we are at war with, had the same storehouse of weapons, that they wouldn't use them on US?

No knee-jerk reaction about this now, but instead, THINK about it.

 

[Annie]

T-Bor, you don't think for a minute, that IF the people we are at war with, had the same storehouse of weapons, that they wouldn't use them on US?

No knee-jerk reaction about this now, but instead, THINK about it.

I think there is no doubt:

http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=145830&format=text

The Good War
By Jules Crittenden/ Online exclusive
Boston Herald City Editor
Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - Updated: 10:12 PM EST

Some people just don’t get it.
Five years on, some people remain unaware that this is war; that we are facing an enemy that will do anything in its power to destroy us.

The fact that on any given day we are free to fly around the world, drive our cars without restriction and buy as much food as we like in rich variety seems to have confused them.

The lack of U-boats attacking the shipping lanes has lulled some people into thinking this is not actually a war. Not a real war, certainly not a good war, not like World War II. They mock the very notion that it is a war, having fun with the name “Global War on Terror.” They put forward the notion that, like almost everything else in our American lives, this thing that has been called a war is a choice. A bad choice.

Who can blame them? Even fighting in this war, unlike most of the great wars our that threatened our existence in the past, is a choice made by a small percentage of Americans who have joined the Armed Forces.

George Bush, while announcing that we were at war five years ago, made a decision to encourage Americans to go about their business as usual. Rather than mobilizing the country for war, he decided he could fight this unconventional war by unconventional means, and with the forces already at hand. Normalcy had its uses as a weapon. It showed that our enemy could not hobble us.

In other respects, it was a mistake. With our military now hyperextended in Iraq, we could use an army twice as large or even larger. Our enemies are emboldened by the belief that we are tied down in Iraq. Iran, correctly identified by Bush as an evil menace, is doing everything it can to live up to that reputation. Somalia, which we walked away from under Bill Clinton, is now under the control of al-Qaeda sympathizers. Syria, at best, turns a blind eye to the terrorists who torment Iraq. The Taliban in Afghanistan have stepped up operations to an unprecedented level in an effort to destablize that country.

Bush chose not to treat this as total war, insisting it could be done with some finetuning of the resources at hand. His domestic opposition has taken that idea several steps farther, insisting Islamic terrorism is a police problem that does not require military force and certainly not the suspension of some legal niceties. After all, they do not consider it an actual war of the sort faced by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt when they destroyed cities and imprisoned anyone who threatened the security of the nation.

Ironically, Bush has been so effective with his approach, that there has not been an attack on the mainland United States since 9-11. That has allowed his opposition to maintain that all the unpleasant things Bush has had to do domestically and abroad are unnecessary, or the very least excessive. They’ve had the freedom to nitpick at the execution of the war, expressing indignation at every misstep, while ignoring major accomplishments, which they see after all as the accomplishments of an unnecessary war based on global intelligence failures that, in hindsight, they cast as lies.

By now the all-American anti-American agenda is all too familiar. Dead American soldiers in Iraq are a political scorecard. The tens of thousands killed since by Islamic terrorists and Baathist ... also America’s fault. The hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam Hussein? A historical footnote.

Purposeful terrorist bombings of civilians, hostage-takings and the broadcasting of gruesome murder are met with silence while accidents of war are cast as war crimes and the misdeeds of a few rogue American soldiers are trumpeted endlessly, in the guise of dissent. There is a political fight between the White House and the CIA, and all of a sudden, the anti-everything crowd is intensely interested in maintaining government secrecy and wants to know who spoke the name of Valerie Plame.

But when it comes to actual substantive issues of national security...
The New York Times has revealed details of secret government surveillance of terrorist financing practices. It was the first of three newspapers to report on the program, and has established itself as the national leader in revealing government secrets with its publication last year of details of the tracking of phone calls and email without warrants.

Its editors have dismissed the notion that this information may be useful to our enemy. They have dismissed the notion that their newspaper may in fact be giving terrorists information that will help them evade detection, and in that way contribute to future murderous attacks.

The New York Times editors are hiding behind the idea of freedom of the press. That has been slowly evolving in recent decades into a freedom without responsibility -- the overarching new American value. It is the value that allows seemingly reasonable people to think we can wish away our problems. It is the value that allows seemingly reasonable people to see our elected president as the enemy.

Our actual and very real enemy purposefully murdered nearly 3,000 people on one day, and has repeatedly attacked civilians other free nations, killing hundreds of people in Europe and Asia, not to mention the thousands of innocents purposefully murdered in Iraq. This enemy has pursued weapons of mass destruction, and given the opportunity, will use them to kill as many of us as possible. They know that militarily, for now, they cannot beat us. But they are patient. They believe, based on past experience, that with our low tolerance for blood we will falter, pull out, and abandon our allies. That will provide them with the opportunity to control nations, to control armies, to control resources. Maybe then we’ll have something more closely resembling total war that Bush’s domestic opposition can finally recognize as a good and necessary war, in which national security must be respected, and excesses in the defense of freedom will be seen in the context of their time, like the carpet bombing of cities, the internment of American citizens and the suspension of habeas corpus. Like the brutalities of the Pacific war and Sherman’s March through Georgia.

But that kind of war - the fabled Good War - belongs to another time. A simpler time. It is probably something that only exists in the rearview mirror anyway.

There are some people who will never get that. Their actions show that they are not worthy of the freedoms that American soldiers have died to give them. Those freedoms are theirs anyway, the birthright of even the most despicable self-centered coward who is born American. But there comes a point when you have to ask, which side are they on? There comes a point when even professional capriciousness and misguided idealism - to be charitable - have to be labelled for what they are: Giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Treason.