We will not win the war on terror until we unleash our power without mercy. We have the power, but they have the will. Until the left stands aside and we as a nation show the will to win, little will be accomplished.
Yah, that's the ticket. Nuke 'em till they glow, right? Shear genius... you should run for election. The general populace is just dumb enough that you'd have a real shot as long as you are a convincing public speaker.
There will never be total victory in the War on Terror, simply because terrorism is something that a single individual can conduct. You will never have everyone on the planet happy with everyone else. Not even close.
And people's definitions of terrorism differ. It's now being considered terrorism when a group like the ELF burns a lumber yard. Is that really terrorism? I think not, but it's being reported as such. The point being the larger we make the umbrella underneath which we place things called terrorism we make the goal exponentially more difficult to achieve.
This is the core of the problem. The focus has been lost. Too many peripherals have been mixed into the equation.
It is completely impossible to end terrorism as we choose to define it at this moment. Period.
We will not win the war on terror until we unleash our power without mercy. We have the power, but they have the will. Until the left stands aside and we as a nation show the will to win, little will be accomplished.
Boy, You got a little Hitler hidden inside, don't you?
The more terrorists (real terrorists) you kill, the more you will breed in the absence of a real political and social reform in the nations that they call home.
We will not win the war on terror until we unleash our power without mercy. We have the power, but they have the will. Until the left stands aside and we as a nation show the will to win, little will be accomplished.
The leftist terror sympathizers at ABC news have already declared the pictures too gruesome meanwhile they say, while showing Abu Ghraib pictures, that we are worse than the terrorists: what the fuck is that?
ABC news in the radio news at 1pm delaired the photos "too grusome for us to see"
The leftist terror sympathizers at ABC news have already declared the pictures too gruesome meanwhile they say, while showing Abu Ghraib pictures, that we are worse than the terrorists: what the fuck is that?
"Leftist terror Sympathizers" ??? Send them to Guantanamo!!! Gitmo the f*ckers!!
You know, anyone with a little....just a tiny little bit of common sense can see the difference between the two . Unless the pictures of Abu Ghraib showed beheaded prisoners....you are seriously struggling today.
There will never be total victory in the War on Terror, simply because terrorism is something that a single individual can conduct. You will never have everyone on the planet happy with everyone else. Not even close.
And people's definitions of terrorism differ. It's now being considered terrorism when a group like the ELF burns a lumber yard. Is that really terrorism? I think not, but it's being reported as such. The point being the larger we make the umbrella underneath which we place things called terrorism we make the goal exponentially more difficult to achieve.
This is the core of the problem. The focus has been lost. Too many peripherals have been mixed into the equation.
It is completely impossible to end terrorism as we choose to define it at this moment. Period.
I think that this is an important point. The words terrorism or terrorist are being applied to any person or group that does not agree with the current ruling party of the US. it's becoming ridiculous. Its a propoganda tactic.
The government has often "declared war" on ideas/concepts/things that you can't really declare war on. I.e. "The war on drugs". What the hell was that?
The definitions have gotten completely confused. But our government has learned that they need the public to percieve that we are at war against something in order to get what they want. The public does not question massive increases in defense spending, abuses of civil liberties, and the unecessary loss of life associated with "War" because they are being told by the mainstream media personalities that any critique is unpatriotic.
We will not win the war on terror until we unleash our power without mercy. We have the power, but they have the will. Until the left stands aside and we as a nation show the will to win, little will be accomplished.
I will have to break with my tradition of being a "liberal-tree hugger", and say I believe that Common Man is right - logically. Unless every country apart from America is made to glow, there will always be terrorism. Then Americans will have to look at their own, and round anyone with any terrorist sympathy, and shoot them. Then there will be no terrorism.
As you can deduce, this scenario is, for all purposes, not possible, which is why the war on terrorism will never ever be won by using arms. $200 billion can buy alot of peace in the world, genuine peace, not bought silence.
Until all of the people in the world feel they have an equal footing in the big playground, there will be terrorism.
We will not win the war on terror until we unleash our power without mercy. We have the power, but they have the will. Until the left stands aside and we as a nation show the will to win, little will be accomplished.
So, you think we can Triumph Over their WIll?
It's starting to look like the current leadership is on the right track for you: Comparison
I always wondered how it became "beheaded." I would think "deheaded" might be a better term.
Maybe it's called beheaded because the prefix bi means to split evenly (bisect, bifurcate) so they used 'b' instead of 'd'. *shrug*
On topic:
Violence begets violence. We can see this daily in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
I read a report once that said $17million a year would feed all the hungry people in the world. That's probably 1/1000th of a percent of our defense budget. Almost makes you wish some government would take a gamble and see if stopping hunger would reduce violence in the world.
I read a report once that said $17million a year would feed all the hungry people in the world. That's probably 1/1000th of a percent of our defense budget. Almost makes you wish some government would take a gamble and see if stopping hunger would reduce violence in the world.
That report is false. $17 million is not much money at all, and the are far more than 17 million starving people in the world.
Comments
And people's definitions of terrorism differ. It's now being considered terrorism when a group like the ELF burns a lumber yard. Is that really terrorism? I think not, but it's being reported as such. The point being the larger we make the umbrella underneath which we place things called terrorism we make the goal exponentially more difficult to achieve.
This is the core of the problem. The focus has been lost. Too many peripherals have been mixed into the equation.
It is completely impossible to end terrorism as we choose to define it at this moment. Period.
Originally posted by Common Man
We will not win the war on terror until we unleash our power without mercy. We have the power, but they have the will. Until the left stands aside and we as a nation show the will to win, little will be accomplished.
Boy, You got a little Hitler hidden inside, don't you?
Originally posted by Common Man
We will not win the war on terror until we unleash our power without mercy. We have the power, but they have the will. Until the left stands aside and we as a nation show the will to win, little will be accomplished.
Let's hear it. What would you do?
Very sad.
That's sad news. My thoughts go out to the Johnson family.
ABC news in the radio news at 1pm delaired the photos "too grusome for us to see"
Originally posted by progmac
and all he was trying to do was get ahead in his career
is that supposed to be a joke? because it's not funny.
Originally posted by a_greer
The leftist terror sympathizers at ABC news have already declared the pictures too gruesome meanwhile they say, while showing Abu Ghraib pictures, that we are worse than the terrorists: what the fuck is that?
"Leftist terror Sympathizers" ???
You know, anyone with a little....just a tiny little bit of common sense can see the difference between the two . Unless the pictures of Abu Ghraib showed beheaded prisoners....you are seriously struggling today.
Originally posted by rageous
There will never be total victory in the War on Terror, simply because terrorism is something that a single individual can conduct. You will never have everyone on the planet happy with everyone else. Not even close.
And people's definitions of terrorism differ. It's now being considered terrorism when a group like the ELF burns a lumber yard. Is that really terrorism? I think not, but it's being reported as such. The point being the larger we make the umbrella underneath which we place things called terrorism we make the goal exponentially more difficult to achieve.
This is the core of the problem. The focus has been lost. Too many peripherals have been mixed into the equation.
It is completely impossible to end terrorism as we choose to define it at this moment. Period.
I think that this is an important point. The words terrorism or terrorist are being applied to any person or group that does not agree with the current ruling party of the US. it's becoming ridiculous. Its a propoganda tactic.
The government has often "declared war" on ideas/concepts/things that you can't really declare war on. I.e. "The war on drugs". What the hell was that?
The definitions have gotten completely confused. But our government has learned that they need the public to percieve that we are at war against something in order to get what they want. The public does not question massive increases in defense spending, abuses of civil liberties, and the unecessary loss of life associated with "War" because they are being told by the mainstream media personalities that any critique is unpatriotic.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Everytime I read one of Common Boy's posts....I see images of the Nazi Youth.
That's sad news. My thoughts go out to the Johnson family.
thank you, this is where our thoughts should be.
Originally posted by Common Man
We will not win the war on terror until we unleash our power without mercy. We have the power, but they have the will. Until the left stands aside and we as a nation show the will to win, little will be accomplished.
I will have to break with my tradition of being a "liberal-tree hugger", and say I believe that Common Man is right - logically. Unless every country apart from America is made to glow, there will always be terrorism. Then Americans will have to look at their own, and round anyone with any terrorist sympathy, and shoot them. Then there will be no terrorism.
As you can deduce, this scenario is, for all purposes, not possible, which is why the war on terrorism will never ever be won by using arms. $200 billion can buy alot of peace in the world, genuine peace, not bought silence.
Until all of the people in the world feel they have an equal footing in the big playground, there will be terrorism.
Originally posted by Common Man
We will not win the war on terror until we unleash our power without mercy. We have the power, but they have the will. Until the left stands aside and we as a nation show the will to win, little will be accomplished.
So, you think we can Triumph Over their WIll?
It's starting to look like the current leadership is on the right track for you: Comparison
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I always wondered how it became "beheaded." I would think "deheaded" might be a better term.
Maybe it's called beheaded because the prefix bi means to split evenly (bisect, bifurcate) so they used 'b' instead of 'd'. *shrug*
On topic:
Violence begets violence. We can see this daily in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
I read a report once that said $17million a year would feed all the hungry people in the world. That's probably 1/1000th of a percent of our defense budget. Almost makes you wish some government would take a gamble and see if stopping hunger would reduce violence in the world.
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
I read a report once that said $17million a year would feed all the hungry people in the world. That's probably 1/1000th of a percent of our defense budget. Almost makes you wish some government would take a gamble and see if stopping hunger would reduce violence in the world.
That report is false. $17 million is not much money at all, and the are far more than 17 million starving people in the world.