• mongol said on Apr 27, 2009....

  I read every word twice. This was a good read. I wish people would read what I write! Do you mind if I'm a regular here? I read you and Sean both.

• javadewd said on Apr 28, 2009....

  It's a free country, so far. It's suppose to be uncensored blogging... Read away... Comment away... Who am I to stop you?

• ALIENated said on Apr 28, 2009....

  
  There is no negotiating with terrorists and no debating with liberals. You
  will lose at either of those endevors. They are both right about everything,
  which is probably why liberals are so adamant about protecting terrorists.
  They are birds of a feather. Fellow know-it-alls. Take Al Gwhore, for example.
  He turns green when someone questions his statements, his brilliance. He
  is right and all should bow to him. Liberals should be forced to live in Mexico 
  for a while and the Middle East for a while, so they can see what they are 
  protecting, what this country is destined to turn into. I think I am going to 
  be sick just thinking about where we are headed.
  
  

• Twylarants said on Apr 28, 2009....

  Isn't it ironic that while this country is heatedly debating the legality and moral correctness of "torturing" the mastermind behind the slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11, the White House military office director decides the timing is perfect to fly a jet, followed by fighter planes, across the NY skyline.
  Louis Caldera should resign, along with Napolitano, the idiot who can't seem to differentiate between American military personnel and terrorists, and, while we're at it, throw Timmy Tax Cheat in for good measure.
  I wonder what diversion the administration will come up with this time to take the spotlight off it's latest blunder.
  
  Alien's right...you can not debate this issue logically with liberals.  Democratic Congresswoman Schacovsky (sp?) of the House Intelligence Committee (now there's an oxymoron) came up with this brilliant retort when asked how she could possibly agree to this investigation:
  "...we aren't that kind of country..."
  
   
   
  

• javadewd said on Apr 28, 2009....

  @AL - Actually, liberals think that they are right, in their own minds. It is not factual to say that a liberal is right, unless you're an existentialist, then everything is relative, especially the facts. And that's where we lose. We refuse to see their ideology... Yes, much like terrorists!
  
  @Twy - The whole cabinet is nothing more than a bunch of liars and thieves, which goes along with most of liberal America's misconception that Obama is the second-coming of the messiah. Even though it is true that Jesus ate with thieves and tax collectors, somebody who is the king of such people can just as well eat with them and not be Jesus. It's flawed conversive logic. Yes, "we aren't that kind of country," but obviously "we aren't a Christian nation," either, so again, let's just kill the fuckers and be done with this idiotic debate of the failed attempt to appease those who shouldn't have been given an attempt at appeasement in the first place!
  
  

• Cussane said on Apr 28, 2009....

  Ahh, comedy hour,
   
  The problem with your theory is that there are liberal wingnuts and conservative wing nuts, if you fail to recognize the idiots on both sides of the politcal spectrum then rant on all you want, it will never change, having siad that there was a book out years ago that was required reading at the CI school written by a gentleman called Gayle Rivers- the war agaisnt terrorism and how to win it, send enough of the bastards to whatever god they believe in and sooner or later they stop volunteering, put them in jail and you are just giving the next terrorist a cause to kill/murder/hijack/ bom for. unfortunately the west does not have the balls to go down this road.
   
  As far as negoaiting with terrorists, correct me if i am wrong but didn't Billy Boy send a high level "representative" to make a deal with the IRA, George Jr, increased funding for plan Columbia and helped deal with the FARC, both of whom are terrorist's
   
  So either deal or dont deal, pick and choose and you just become a laughing stock
   
   
  Cussane

• travelr712 said on Apr 28, 2009....

  "The peacemakers who believe that there can never be peace until the terrorists are all dead"
   
  a peacemaker is one who thinks you have to kill all who oppose you before you can have peace? hmm, sounds more like hitler than ghandi to me.

• curmudgeon said on Apr 28, 2009....

  uh - Gandhi was assassinated. Moreover, Gandhi, in his desire to foster peaceful relations between Hindus and Muslims in the subcontinent, finally went along with the partition of the country. Then the US made the mistake of siding with Pakistan in the 1970s.
  
  Now we have nuclear-armed Pakistan and India both just one or two provocations away from anihilating each other.
  
  Gandhi's vision was just that - a vision. Human nature is to fight. Some folks will simply not give up trying to cause grievous harm to the United States, no matter what attempts at peacemaking are made.
  
  Until we acknowledge that reality, we can't come up with common sense solutions.
  
  

• travelr712 said on Apr 28, 2009....

  oh i agree curmudgeon, i was merely commenting that those who want to kill, imo, cannot call themselves peacemakers.

• curmudgeon said on Apr 28, 2009....

  "Want" to kill - no, probably not. "Have" to kill, I don't know.
  
  Should we have made peace with Hitler, knowing that every single Jew in Europe would likely have been killed off?
  
  Was it right for us, in the name of "peace," to abandon the Cambodians to the tender mercies of the Khmer Rouge?
  
  Didn't the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki end the war sooner, thereby bringing saving Japanese and American lives and fostering peace quicker than a full-scale conventional invasion of the Japanese mainland?
  
  It is indeed a bitter irony that peace must sometimes be waged with gun and bomb - at least peace on terms we find acceptable. Perhaps you are right that those who wage war cannot truthfully be called peacemakers, but neither can it be argued that the "peaceful" approach necessarily results in peaceful outcomes.
  

• travelr712 said on Apr 28, 2009....

  those are all acts of war curmudgeon, not acts of peacemaking. ya know, on the day of 911, one of my co-workers went around saying 'just drop the bomb and glass em all'. it turned my stomach! of course you can have peace if you commit genocide on your 'enemy'. there's no one left to fight, but that certainly does not make you a peacemaker.

• stopmediabias said on Apr 28, 2009....

  I think there comes a point where we have to realize and make others realize there are certain people and maybe certain groups who have become profoundly evil because of a lot of reasons including ideological beliefs.  Trying to rationalize or change these people's beliefs in order to stop or minimize harm to your own country is just silly and completely wrong. 

  With cases like the IRA, an outside mediater going in to try to broker some kind of peace is far different than making an arrangement to stop someone from blowing up one your schools.

  When you look at incidents like the Beslan school incident, times like that tells us these people need to either be put in a dark cell or a dark hole in the ground.

  Most Liberals think peace is absence of conflict, it's not because we will always have conflict, peace is everyone getting along without killing or threatening to kill one another.

• Cussane said on Apr 28, 2009....

  SMB: there is your problem, picking and chosing terrorist's yet demanding clear and concise actions against others, you can not have it both ways, the IRA blew up many schools, buses, attacked funerals, robbed banks, dealt in guns, drugs, torture etc, so where is the far difference, following your logic, we should send a mediator to iraq and try to arrange for peace, so would that make you a liberal ???? Cussane

• javadewd said on Apr 28, 2009....

  The IRA's ideology wasn't nearly as extreme as Islamic Jihadists, but I still think that half-assing the problem by water-boarding or even throwing pigs blood on them was wrong in the sense that we should have just killed them. I don't think that the IRA would have taken such extreme force, but in war, what's the difference. The people fighting us weren't national militaries, they were civilians with weapons and a grudge.

• superbozo said on Apr 28, 2009....

  Having served in Northern Ireland I would have to disagree with your statement that the IRA are not as extreme as Islamic Jihadists. I saw 15 year olds knee capped for un-sociable behaviour by the IRA. When it got to hard for them to carry out their attacks on troops or police they simply started to attack shopping centres in England. They only wanted to force others into carring out their wishes. They held most of their own community and so called support base to ransom. Not donating at the pub on friday and saturday night would mean a beating or far worse. They carried out all the things listed by cussane. Terrorism is terrorism no matter how often or extreme the attacks. It was often stated that the British Armed Forces had a shot to kill policy. Well they could have taken the IRA out in one night if that was the case. People like Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness both convicted terrorists turned politians would have been top of the list.

  There is a point where people on both sides tire of the continous conflict. It took over 30 years before the 2 communities of Northen Ireland tired enough to finally force leaders on both sides to sit down and negotiate a cease fire.

  Kill as many as you want. However in the end you may have no choice but to sit down and negotiate a cease fire. Sure there will be those on both sides that want to continue the conflict as there are in NI right now. That hasn't stopped people from trying. I can't see it happening but what if the Taliban and Al Qaeda suddenly said they wanted peace. That they wanted to negotiate an end to all hostilities. Would you really just keep going after them or would you try to negotiate in good faith.

• Cussane said on Apr 28, 2009....

  This is why america will never win the war on terror, what the fuck difference does it make if the IRA's ideolgy wasn't as extreme, a dead victim is a dead victim, just because one ideolgy is not as extreme doesn't make the victim any less dead, i was born and raised in Northern Ireland and lost two family members to the IRA while serving with the British Army, are they any less dead, a terrorist is a terroist is a terrorist, doesn't matter if they are irish, columbian or middle eastern, if you accept one type then you must accept all of them. Cussane

• travelr712 said on Apr 28, 2009....

  i guess it all boils down to 'an eye for an eye' or 'turn the other cheek', doesn't it?

• javadewd said on Apr 28, 2009....

  SuperBozo -- Okay, let's kill them all, too! Terrorists are terrorists and war is war. As much as I personally would love to see peace in the middle east, there are hundreds of centuries of history that point to a slim to none chance that it will ever happen. The same thing would have to happen as before, the people themselves would have to rise up and take power, but we've seen even in Iraq that it takes time, money and man-power to make that happen and let's face it, libs just don't want to get involved.
  
  Trav -- No, it has to do with the simple concept of disciplining bad behavior and understanding the limitations of your enemy's ideology. The demonstration listed in the original article doesn't demonstrate an "eye for an eye," otherwise we would simply lose. The article demonstrates that terrorists do not understand negotiations to be of any strong character or will. They instead see this as weakness.
  
  Strangely, if you are familiar with the Star Trek universe, it would be like negotiating with Klingons. Klingons don't allow themselves to be taken prisoners, take no prisoners, kill everything and sometimes don't even take the possessions for those they kill. Until "The Undiscovered Country" the only thing that prompted "negotiations" was that one of their planets had imploded, which made them aware of their own mortality and threatened the existence of their race in a way that was more of a threat than any confrontation with an external race.
  
  The same type of instance can be brought into the real world with the historic example of Hiroshima in World War II. The Japanese gave up because they were simply out-bombed and demoralized. Short of turning Iran to a sheet of glass, I find it difficult to see how we can achieve middle-eastern peace, not because we don't have some of the best peace negotiators in the world (and oh, by the way, "Peacekeeper" is a UN term -- Lawful good doesn't mean lawful nice and justice doesn't stop at torture), it's because we simply believe that terrorists should come to the table accepting and understanding our ideaology and that just isn't true.
  
  The fact is that the expanded definition of a sociopath is someone with a liberal mindset that uses conservative laws and principles against a person, group of people or society as a whole, for personal gain by ignoring the ideologies around them or by adopting an ideaology that does simply that.
  
  Put that in your local politician's pipe and smoke it, especially that shit-heel Specter!
  
  

• HollyGoLightly said on Apr 28, 2009....

  just one thing;  speaking to you *java* (after you pointed me here ;)  ),
  and you alone... 
   
  "there is  *idealism*, then there is *truth* (and perhaps), never the twain shall meet"...
   
  *~*Holly*~*

• superbozo said on Apr 28, 2009....

  Javadewd If you do not think there will ever be peace in the Middle East then what is the point of sending troops there to enforce it. Why does America and many other nations including the middle eastern ones bother to have diplomatic ties. Which enemy are you fighting. The roots to the Taliban and Al Qaeda were financed by whom. Osama Bin Laden received training from whom. It might be surpprising for you to discover that America played a huge part in creating the problem that presently exsists. When Russia invaded Afghanistan in the 80s it was America who got the Pakistani government to ignore the tribal areas so that muslim voulunteers could train and supply the Mughadeen in their fight against the dreaded communists. It was America through the CIA that funded and trained the organisations that would eventually become the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Same as the IRA recieved much of their funding from America through NORAID a charitable front for a terrorist organization.
   
  Body counts did not help the Americans win the Vietnam war. The more you kill the more turn up. I watched the destruction of Iraq first hand in 1991 when I served in Desert Storm or Operation Granby as the Brits called it. At the end of that operation the people did indeed rise up. Bush snr was the catalst by announcing that they should rise up and topple saddam. They tried only to be slaughtered by what was left of Saddams forces in southern Iraq. 
   
  Cussane is right there is no win here the way things are playing out.

• stopmediabias said on Apr 29, 2009....

  The battle against terrorism can be won by marginalizing these groups, waging real war against these groups, and keeping Liberals away from the whole situation because they (while noble in their pursuits) cannot stomach conflict. 

  George Bush may be a scallywag to most people but he was able to get good Muslims (using "good" very loosely) to fight against bad Muslims (the terrorists.)  He was also able to put a Democracy in there which is what will end this terrorism.  Democracy empowers the people to reach beyond and gives them something to do that doesn't include worry about getting tortured or murdered by their government, that is probably the most powerful tool against terrorism.

  I think the biggest problem is lack of unity.  When Iran calls Israel a stinking corpse and threatens to destroy them the entire world should huddle over that country like a couple of parents over their kids and demand a retraction or face annihilation.  Right now we people and countries that are infected with this sickness of Liberalism they will never recognize that there are certain times when war is the only answer.  What would Iran look like today if Carter took them out way back when?  Did Carter's Liberalism make Iran more or less easy to deal with?  Both sides of the aisle are to blame here, how many lives would have been saved if we took Iraq out many years before we did? 

• curmudgeon said on Apr 29, 2009....

  I'm not quite sure I understand the liberal position - shall we now enter negotiations with Al Zawahri? And concede what, exactly, in exchange for peace? Bring all troops home? Abandon Israel? Where do liberals draw the line?
  
  One of bin Laden's major problems with the US was our military presence in Saudi Arabia. After 9/11 we closed that base. Did this concession buy us any credit with Al Qaeda and their supporters? No.
  
  Negotiating is a lot like trade - two people meet, they bring various offerings to the table, and come to an agreement. Al Qaeda is not interested in negotiating, at least as far as we know now. The question is not whether to negotiate. We need two parties for that. The question is what we do in the face of opponents who single-mindedly seek the deaths of people living in the United States and Americans abroad.
  
  If someday - and that day will likely be long in coming - Al Qaeda leaders want to negotiate a truce, it will be because we've decimated their ranks sufficiently to convince them to sue for peace. In that case, I'd be all for negotiating. But to negotiate from the front side of a loaded gun is to bargain from an extraordinarily weak position.
  

• javadewd said on Apr 29, 2009....

  Holly -- So true, dear... So true.
  
  Super -- I think George Carlin said it best, "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity." If you really think we went over there to enforce peace, you've been duped. We went there to liberate Iraq. UN peacekeepers are wishful thinking, and sure, I hope I'm wrong and they can do something, but come on, let's get real here... The terrorists were being financed by Iranian leaders, Iraqi leaders (buh-bye, Saddam!), Saudi Arabia and other fun-loving countries that simply hate America and us as westerners. It's too bad that those that also hate America are in power (i.e. liberals), because now we're getting pulled apart from the inside and out. I don't think your points here are invalid at all, especially now with the Obama administration...
  
  SMB -- Iran would have been a smoking crater, but I don't honestly know if that would have brought peace to the middle east. I think SBZ has a point where the splatter (leftovers) would have ganged up with some other country and tried to finish what they started. Cockroaches, man. Cockroaches!!
  
  curm -- To an Islamic Jihadist, you are an Infidel and don't deserve to breathe. The only way I see us coming to the negotiating table is to break this philosophy by some creative method like : Proving Islam invalid; Proving all followers of Allah to also be Infidels; Raining pigs blood down on everyone's heads; Something of that nature... I'm open to ideas...
  
  

• superbozo said on Apr 29, 2009....

  The decision has already been made to get out of Iraq so it seems and to focus on Afghanistan. What will happen when Iraq desends into chaos again. As it I think it will.
  Blaming liberals will get you no where. Both sides of the political spectrum have made fundamental mistakes in the way they deal with this problem. You do not need to go into all out war. When the hostage crisis occured in Lebenon in the late 80's. Only westerners were kidnapped. Terrorists only made the mistake of kidnapping a Russian once. Why. The KGB found out who was in charge of the group responsible, Kidnapped family members of the leaders of that group and sent a testicle of the group leaders father to him, with a release your prisoner or your family gets it. You can guess the result. Russian released and no more kidnapped.
  Between the US, Britian and the others allies we have the best special forces in the world. Small scale targeted missions is all that are needed. Thats all Israel has done for years now. Apart from operations right on their border they use mosad to take out their enemies. Once you target the leaders personally and that may mean taking out their family members just to prove the point. They will want a way for it all to stop. Launching huge military operations just play into the Jihadist mentality. Small scale assasination and selective missle strikes at the leaders of these groups are the way to go. Once someone makes a public calls for Jihad. Take him out. They will soon stop their public calls for jihad. Then isolate the countries that are a problem. That would mean finding an alternative to oil. Which is the only reason alot of these middle eastern countries have any influence anyway. Sending in the troops may be required now and then but I think it has been very counterproductive the way it is carried out at the moment. As you can see I vary in the way I think about this. I try not to get to closed in to one way of dealing with this problem as it is ever changing and the tactics required need to be as flexible as possible. Never dismiss anything even negotiation at the end is a possibility. True we have to weaken them at lot more before that can happen.

• javadewd said on Apr 29, 2009....

  I vote SuperBozo for Secretary of State of the US! I don't care what country he's from... He's got more balls than Hillary Clinton!
  
  

• mixednuts said on Apr 29, 2009....

  What would captain Kirk do?

• javadewd said on Apr 29, 2009....

  Kirk: You didn't really think I was going to beat his head in, did you?
  Spock: I thought you might.
  Kirk: You're right.
  Errand Of Mercy
  
  

• javadewd said on Apr 29, 2009....

  Kirk: Well, there it is - war. We didn't want it, but we've got it.
  Spock: It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want.
  Errand of Mercy
  
  

• superbozo said on Apr 30, 2009....

  **checks his sack** If only i could get this huge rod out of the way to see properly :)
   
  Yep I got big balls.......lol

• javadewd said on Apr 30, 2009....

  Rock on, dude!

• stopmediabias said on Apr 30, 2009....

  Soooo....do you guys want to be alone? :>

• travelr712 said on Apr 30, 2009....

  LOL smb!

• superbozo said on Apr 30, 2009....

  lol smb......didn't see you guys there :)

• kelly said on Apr 30, 2009....

  I see the straw men are falling like crazy around here....

• javadewd said on May 01, 2009....

  Ah, so I see that bloc sent his lap dog over here to be a nuisance... Okay, Kelly, I'm up for some cheap entertainment, let's hear your little liberal spiel... Or did you just "pop in" to "leave your one-liner of infinite wisdom" that should "turn us all from our evil traditional conservative ways" so that we can be good little self-centered automatons? Do tell... Where's this man of straw, outline what you mean, unless you're just pulling a snippet of a sound-bite you heard from MSNBC!
  

• curmudgeon said on May 01, 2009....

  Spock: What shall we do now, Captain? The Klingon vessel won't respond to our hails.
  
  Kirk: Photon Torpedos
  
  Spock: Is that wise? What will the Klingons think of our militaristic violence? It's more logical to attempt to negotiate.
  
  Kirk: Didn't you just tell me they won't respond to our hails?
  
  Spock: ....Yes.
  
  Kirk: Photon torpedos.
  
  Spock: But Captain, aren't you afraid that the Federation journalists will call you a Captain Hornblower?
  
  Kirk: Spock - the Klingons are about to attack. They've attacked us before, they'll attack us again, they won't negotiate. Photon fucking torpedos, you pointy-eared green skinned appeaser! I don't need Neville Chamberlain as a Science Officer! You! Red shirt! Dust this monotonous surrender monkey!
  
  (Chief of the Watch phases Spock)
  
  Bones: He's dead, Jim.
  
  Sulu: Oooohhh myyyy....
  
  Kirk: Mr. Checkhov, Photon torpedoes.
  
  Checkhov: Aye aye, Captain.
  
  Uhura: Captain, how about you send Yeoman Rand and I over to the Klingon ship to...negotiate a truce? I'm certain we can be...persuasive.
  
  Kirk: Yeoman Rand? No, no. Take Sulu with you.
  
  Sulu: Oooh myyy..
  

• javadewd said on May 01, 2009....

  LMAO! I can hear Spock now, "There is no intelligent life on this planet, Jim..."

• travelr712 said on May 01, 2009....

  i find it most telling that the population of the conservative republican party has fallen to 21%. that means that 79% of the population no longer believes in or supports the ideals or effectiveness of that party.

• curmudgeon said on May 01, 2009....

  travelr - just as liberals ask us to give Obama time, perhaps you ought to reserve judgment as to what exactly the population actually believes.
  
  The partisan pendulum swings back and forth, largely on the misdeeds of the controlling party.
  
  I will give Obama and his Dems time - to overreach, to overspend, to overtax, and to overestimate their ability to negotiate with America haters.
  

• travelr712 said on May 01, 2009....

  perhaps you're right curm, or perhaps americans are as fed up with the republican elitist expansionist warmonger ideals as the rest of the world and the party will go the way of the wigs.

• superbozo said on May 01, 2009....

  Whats the point in arguing about politics. Lets face it they are politians. That by definition means they are are fucked up.
  Cussane "there are liberal wingnuts and conservative wing nuts, if you fail to recognize the idiots on both sides of the politcal spectrum then rant on all you want"
   
  Well I put it to you they are all wing nuts. There are in it for themselves. Name one politician that has improved any situation in the last 15-20 years. All they care about is getting re-elected. If they can't get re-elected then they put family members up to be elected for them.
   
  Nothing changes. It's all smoke and mirrors.

• travelr712 said on May 01, 2009....

  oh sb, the point of arguing politics is that sometimes it's fun to argue. some of us just have that 'argument gene' in us, and political views are an undefinably devisive enough subject to keep useless debates going for days!

• javadewd said on May 01, 2009....

  Oh, trav... I just heard that 96% of all blacks supported Obama, 0% did not support him and 4% weren't sure. That's per this CBS poll. After hearing from hundreds of black conservatives on the matter, I guess they simply don't exist, right?
  
  I agree it's fun to argue, but it's so much more fun making fun of politicians. At least we can find humor in such tragedy.
  
  

• travelr712 said on May 01, 2009....

  now on that jd, we agree!

• travelr712 said on May 01, 2009....

  chekov: when are we going to get there?
   
  kirk: get where mister?
   
  chekov: where we've been trying to get for 200 years!
   
  kirk: and just... where... would that be... mr. chekov?
   
  chekov: to bodlygo, where no man has gone before!

• superbozo said on May 02, 2009....

  lol. I get it. I think it was my arguementative side slightly affected by alcohol coming out. Thanks Trav. :)
   
  Hi Java, Laughing at politicians is my favorite past time.

• doortoinsanity said on Jun 02, 2009....

  You have to laugh.  What else you gonna do?  Vote.  lol.   
  You're right.  You cannot win a war with rules.  Especially one against people with no limits.  It's not possible.
  
  

Comment on "They Are Terrorists, You Idiot!"

Currently tagged	politics terrorism traitors president terrorists torture peace Terrorist one thing great-read (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously