American Hero John Murtha Blasts Namecalling and Liars

[Nickdfresh]

Rep. John Murtha: Confessions of a 'Defeatocrat'
Date 2006/10/17 6:13:28 |

October 16, 2006 --

The Republicans are running scared. In the White House, on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail, they're worried about losing control of Congress. And so the administration and the GOP have launched a desperate assault on Democrats and our position on the war in Iraq. Defeatists, they call us, and appeasers and -- oh so cleverly -- 'Defeatocrats.'"
Vice President Cheney has accused Democrats of "self-defeating pessimism." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has faulted us for believing that "vicious extremists can be appeased." The White House calls Democrats the party of "cut and run."

It's all baseless name-calling, and it's all wrong. Unless, of course, being a Defeatocrat means taking a good hard look at the administration's Iraq policy and determining that it's a failure.

In that case, count me in. Because Democrats recognize that we're headed for a far greater disaster in Iraq if we don't change course -- and soon. This is not defeatism. This is realism.

Our troops who are putting their lives on the line deserve a plan that matches our military prowess with diplomatic and political skill. They deserve a clear and achievable mission and they deserve to know precisely what it will take to accomplish it. They deserve answers, not spin.

Our military has done all it can do in Iraq, and the Iraqis want their occupation to end. I support bringing our troops home at the earliest practicable date, at a rate that will keep those remaining there safe on the ground. It's time that the White House and the GOP start working with Democrats in Congress to come up with a reasonable timetable for withdrawal and for handing the Iraqi government over to the Iraqis.

The administration's use of Rovian catchphrases is nothing but propaganda designed to stifle the loyal opposition. We Democrats are determined to restore our nation's military strength, refocus on the real terrorist threat, bolster security safeguards at home and reestablish the credible standing we once had in the world. That is not defeatist. It is a call to formulate and execute a winning game plan for the War on Terror.

Most Democrats voted against the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. Regrettably, I was not one of them. Since entering Congress in 1974, I have always supported the president on issues of war. But in this case, I made a mistake -- and unlike certain members of the administration, I'm willing to say so. If I had known in October 2002 what I know now, I would never have voted for the resolution.

Some of my Democratic colleagues questioned whether Iraq posed an immediate threat to our national security; some were not convinced that Iraq was accelerating the development of nuclear weapons and had an active chemical and biological weapons program; and almost all believed that Iraq was not involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They turned out to be right on all three counts. Nevertheless, since our forces deployed to Iraq, Democratic support for the troops has never wavered.

In the past nine months alone, $962 billion has been appropriated for the Defense Department, $190 billion for the war effort. A vast majority of Democrats voted for the funding. Democrats also identified shortfalls in body armor, armored vehicles and electronic jammers to defeat roadside bombs. Democrats uncovered problems with the military readiness of our ground forces in the United States and fought for measures to restore it. That's hardly defeatist.

When U.S. forces first entered Baghdad, the Iraqi people cheered as the statue of Saddam Hussein was torn from its pedestal. Forty-two months and $400 billion later, we are caught in a civil war in which 61 percent of Iraqis think killing Americans is justified and the Iraqi people butcher one another at an alarming rate. We are considered occupiers. The longer we stay, the harder it becomes for the Iraqis to find their own destiny.

The administration's "stay-the-course" strategy is not a plan for victory. It's not even a plan. All we have is a new military blueprint to keep 140,000 troops in Iraq through 2010.

We are seeing an astonishing and unprecedented parade of retired U.S. generals calling for a new direction in Iraq. These are voices of bravery, experience, conscience and loyalty. These are men who have been taught to look coldly and objectively at the facts of bloodshed. Can they all be wrong? How about the 15 intelligence agencies that recently offered the opinion that this war has not made us safer? Are they all defeatists? Are they to be ignored?

Was Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, former Army chief of staff, a defeatist when he said that it would take several hundred thousand troops to prevail in Iraq? His recommendation was ignored. Or what about Gen. Jay M. Garner, our first administrator in Iraq, who recommended that the Iraqi army be kept intact and used to stabilize the country? His recommendations were ignored. The Iraqi army was disbanded and the former military took their munitions and went off to form the core of the insurgency. Was former secretary of state Colin L. Powell defeatist when he warned: "If you break it, you own it"? Was Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower a defeatist when he ran for president in 1952 to change the course of Democrat Harry S. Truman's administration in Korea?

Will the White House toss the same tired insults at Sen. John W. Warner (Va.), the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who has voiced concern over the situation in Iraq? Or at former secretary of state James A. Baker III when the commission he is co-chairing delivers its report on reassessing our options in Iraq?

This administration's insistence on a "go-it-alone, stay-the-course" policy in the face of objections from a majority of Americans and Iraqis and most world public opinion, and in the face of a deteriorating situation, defies logic.

The United States is about to begin its fifth year of occupation and fighting in Iraq. That makes this war longer than U.S. participation in World Wars I and II, and longer than the Korean War and our own Civil War. With every year of occupation, our efforts to fight global terrorism and our military's readiness to fight future wars have further deteriorated, along with our standing in the world. Meanwhile, the radical Islamic cause wins more and more recruits.

Despite the presence of more than 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, 23,000 Americans injured or killed, tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths and the expenditure of nearly a half a trillion dollars, here are the dismal results:

* In September, 776 U.S troops were wounded in Iraq, the highest monthly toll in more than two years.

* Over the past year, the number of attacks against U.S. personnel has doubled, rising from 400 to more than 800 per week.

* Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, recently acknowledged that sectarian violence has replaced the insurgency as the single biggest threat to Iraq.

* In the past two months, 6,000 Iraqis died, more than in the first year of the war.

* Last week, electricity output averaged 2.4 hours per day in Baghdad and 10.4 hours nationwide -- 7 percent less than in the same period in 2005.

* A Sept. 27 World Public Opinion poll indicated that 91 percent of Iraqi Sunnis and 74 percent of Iraqi Shiites want the Iraqi government to ask U.S.-led forces to withdraw within a year. Ninety-seven percent of Sunnis and 82 percent of Shiites said that the U.S. military presence is "provoking more conflict than it is preventing." And Iraqi support for attacks against U.S.-led forces has increased sharply over the past few months, from 47 percent to 61 percent.

Now, Karl Rove may call me a defeatist, but can anyone living in the real world deny that these statistics are heading in the wrong direction? Yet despite this bleak record of performance, the president continues to stand by his team of failed architects, preferring to prop them up instead of demanding accountability.

Democrats are fighting a war on two fronts: One is combating the spin and intimidation that defines this administration. The other is fighting to change course, to do things better, to substitute smart, disciplined strategy for dogma and denial in Iraq.

That's not defeatism. That's our duty."

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) is the ranking member on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. He served 37 years in the Marine Corps.

Source: Rep. John Murtha

http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+print+storyid-16742.html

[ELVIS]

I don't buy that "61 percent of Iraqis think killing Americans is justified"

Defeatocrat bullshit...

[Nickdfresh]

Yeah, just dismiss the facts you can't handle fool...

[blueturk]

Originally posted by ELVIS
I don't buy that "61 percent of Iraqis think killing Americans is justified"

Defeatocrat bullshit...

But if it said 61% of Americans think that everything's fine in Iraq, you'd buy it faster than Bush can mangle himself with a pretzel.

[ELVIS]

It would be more believable than that other crap...

[Nickdfresh]

You mean like about 90% of the Bible?

[ELVIS]

What 10% do you believe ??

[Nickdfresh]

The parts you like to ignore, or the tenets you like to rationalize the violating of...

[ELVIS]

What ??

:confused:

Boy, U Stupid...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS
What ??

:confused:

Boy, U Stupid...


unfuckingbelievable :rolleyes:

Why do you even bother to post anymore?

[DEMON CUNT]

37 years of military experience means nothing to these conservative robots.

[Nickdfresh]

Look at Elvira dummycon hurl childish insults...

LMFAO! Is quoting Joe Thunder aliases the best you have now Elvira? After all, he's a Republican and a pedophile too...

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by ELVIS
I don't buy that "61 percent of Iraqis think killing Americans is justified"

Defeatocrat bullshit...

That's because you're ignorant.

600,000 dead Iraqis in a country the size of California.

How many have had relatives killed in cold blood by our bombs or by the civil war death squads?

Everyone has friends or relatives that have been murdered. Why wouldn't they want to strike back at those responsible?

You need to understand the enemy to defeat the enemy. It's far too late for the leaders you support to grasp that fact.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
600,000 dead Iraqis in a country the size of California.

Is that what the libs are saying this week? Last week it was 550,000, the week before that it was 500,000, and so on.

I figure in another 8 weeks, it'll hit the 1,000,000 mark. Eventually there will be more dead in Iraq that the total population of the country.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Is that what the libs are saying this week? Last week it was 550,000, the week before that it was 500,000, and so on.

I figure in another 8 weeks, it'll hit the 1,000,000 mark. Eventually there will be more dead in Iraq that the total population of the country.

No polesmoker, it's the approximate number from the last semi-credible news source I've read. I don't have time to go find the exact number and post a source.

Crappy job trying to change the subject.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
Is that what the libs are saying this week? Last week it was 550,000, the week before that it was 500,000, and so on.

I figure in another 8 weeks, it'll hit the 1,000,000 mark. Eventually there will be more dead in Iraq that the total population of the country.

Yeah, fuck it, right? Who gives a shit about dead Iraqis? Not you.

Is it all a liberal conspiracy to make President Bush look bad?

http://www.foxnews.com/images/162447/22_24_050405_iraq2.jpg

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
No polesmoker, it's the approximate number from the last semi-credible news source I've read. I don't have time to go find the exact number and post a source.

Crappy job trying to change the subject.

'semi-credible' is the right word. Even the National Enquirer has been right a few times over it's history.

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Yeah, fuck it, right? Who gives a shit about dead Iraqis? Not you.

Is it all a liberal conspiracy to make President Bush look bad?

http://www.foxnews.com/images/162447/22_24_050405_iraq2.jpg

Who do you think killed that poor kid in that picture you posted?

[ELVIS]

Politics would make one say George Bush...

I answered the question for you idiots, thank me later...

[FORD]

Ultimately, Chimpy IS responsible. If he hadn't started his illegal, insane, sickening war, that child and likely 325,000 others* would be alive today.



* based on the recent statistic of over 650,000 dead Iraqi civilians, and the fact that 50% of Iraq's population are children

[ELVIS]

I don't want to see that child or anyone else die, but is that all that matters ??

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
I don't want to see that child or anyone else die, but is that all that matters ??

If you still believe the fable of the BCE "war on terra", you at least DO know that Iraq never had anything to do with it, right?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
Who do you think killed that poor kid in that picture you posted?

Ultimately, that child was killed as a result of the chaos introduced by the illegal invasion that you wholeheartedly support.

President Stay the course's lies about WMD killed that child.

Human life means nothing to you.

[ELVIS]

Saddam funded terrorism...

He paid suicide bomber's families $25,000 to have them do what they did...

That's never having anything to do with "terra" ??

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by ELVIS
I don't want to see that child or anyone else die, but is that all that matters ??

The citizens of Iraq did nothing to deserve what we are doing to their home.

The conservative's inability to empathize is simply chilling.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Saddam funded terrorism...

He paid suicide bomber's families $25,000 to have them do what they did...


Aer you sure about that?

So why are the people of Iraq suffering at our hand for Saddam's actions?

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Saddam funded terrorism...

He paid suicide bomber's families $25,000 to have them do what they did...

That's never having anything to do with "terra" ??

Where's the proof of that allegation? Did that turn out to be bullshit like the lie about CIA drug mule Mohammad Atta supposedly meeting with Iraqis in Prauge, or Berlin, or where ever the Hell the non existent meeting supposedly was?

Or Poppy's planted story about the babies being pulled out of incubators in 1991, which again was a total lie.

[ELVIS]

Ok, everything is a lie...:rolleyes:

Elect Hillary and get it all over with...

C'mon...:rolleyes:

[FORD]

Fuck Hillary. Her foreign policy would be more of the same bullshit.

[ELVIS]

Well, who on earth can get us out of this mess, or at least get it over with ??

BTW, I prefer the latter...

[DEMON CUNT]

Elvis, you still have not explained the "stay the course" concept.

What do you mean when you say that?

Talk about not having a plan!

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Well, who on earth can get us out of this mess, or at least get it over with ??

BTW, I prefer the latter...

Of course you prefer that later. You are not over there being shot at by insurgent snipers.

We need to leave and let them figure it out. You have been programmed to expect victory when it is not possible.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
'semi-credible' is the right word. Even the National Enquirer has been right a few times over it's history.

Well, it's kind of hard to tell when gw's stated policy is not to count them at all.

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
The citizens of Iraq did nothing to deserve what we are doing to their home.

The conservative's inability to empathize is simply chilling.

Why don't you put some blame on the radical Islamists over there who are killing their own countrymen instead of on our guys? That's who killed that child in the picture you posted! Not our troops.

They are the ones carbombing. They are the ones strapping bombs on and going out to the market. Not us. We went in there to take out a thug dictator who had killed 100,000s of his own citizens in a brutal fashion over the last thirty years, not cause terrorists to come out of the woodwork to kill children.

I'm sure the terrorist who killed that kid was probably funded by Iran or Syria.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Politics would make one say George Bush...

I answered the question for you idiots, thank me later...

Who are you calling an idiot you southern-fried redneck sped?

Like I said in another thread, when was the last time you offered anything intelligent?

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
Where's the proof of that allegation? Did that turn out to be bullshit like the lie about CIA drug mule Mohammad Atta supposedly meeting with Iraqis in Prauge, or Berlin, or where ever the Hell the non existent meeting supposedly was?

Or Poppy's planted story about the babies being pulled out of incubators in 1991, which again was a total lie.

Yeah, Saddam was a real saint, right FORD?

I know liberals just love guys like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, but aren't you making a stretch here?

[LoungeMachine]

The Saudis HELD FUCKING TELETHONS to raise CASH for families of suicide bombers.......

Wonder why we haven't invaded yet.....


:rolleyes:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Why don't you put some blame on the radical Islamists over there who are killing their own countrymen instead of on our guys? That's who killed that child in the picture you posted! Not our troops.

Over where, Iraq? And of the "radical Islamicists" that we support called the Shia that comprise the Army and the infamous national "police?" One pro-Iranian ones forming death squads that are leaving bodies all over Baghdad? Hey, they're radical Islamicists, but they're OUR radical Islamicists state terrorists...


They are the ones carbombing. They are the ones strapping bombs on and going out to the market. Not us. We went in there to take out a thug dictator who had killed 100,000s of his own citizens in a brutal fashion over the last thirty years, not cause terrorists to come out of the woodwork to kill children.

I'm sure the terrorist who killed that kid was probably funded by Iran or Syria.

The the one's we're supporting are the ones that are abducting people in police uniforms, and leaving their bullet-riddled bodies bearing signs of torture around Baghdad. And the sick thing is that many in our gov't barely know the difference between Shia and Sunni religious sects, we just ignorantly and arrogantly lump them in as all the same "Islamofascists."

Such an easy spin of such a complex problem...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, Saddam was a real saint, right FORD?

That's irrelevant, and you know it. You could give a shit about which tin-pot dictator controls where...

Where are your threads about the Congo (if you could even find it on the map!) or Darfur Ms. Bleeding Heart?


I know liberals just love guys like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, but aren't you making a stretch here?

Yeah, "'liberals' jussst love" 'em!! Another brilliant statement of shit not supported by any real facts.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Such an easy spin of such a complex problem...

But you seem to support an easy escape plan, don't ya? Pull them troops out and send 'em to Okinawa, just like Murtha wants! If trouble brews up again, we can send 'em back.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
Why don't you put some blame on the radical Islamists over there who are killing their own countrymen instead of on our guys? That's who killed that child in the picture you posted! Not our troops.

They are the ones carbombing. They are the ones strapping bombs on and going out to the market. Not us. We went in there to take out a thug dictator who had killed 100,000s of his own citizens in a brutal fashion over the last thirty years, not cause terrorists to come out of the woodwork to kill children.

I'm sure the terrorist who killed that kid was probably funded by Iran or Syria.

Because that shit wasn't going on before we invaded, stupid!

There have been way too many documented cases of American troops abusing and murdering Iraqi citizens. How would you feel if an occupying force tortured and killed a member of your family? Would you be thankful or would you want to kill them?

Remember these you self-righteous neocon coward?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/02/16/wtort16.jpg

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/abu-ghraib_sbs53.jpg

Here's some that the so-called liberal media has not shown you yet:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/

What does the Bible have to say about this? (Hint: check the 10 Commandments) You only quote the Bible when it is convenient for you.

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Because that shit wasn't going on before we invaded, stupid!

What does the Bible have to say about this? (Hint: check the 10 Commandments) You only quote the Bible when it is convenient for you.

Terrorists didn't have to worry about killing Iraqis before Saddam was taken out. He was doing enough himself.

While you are googling pics of victims, why don't you post some of Saddam's victims. Look up 1988 and Kurds for the warm up. Estimates of deaths on Hussein's hands anywhere from 300,000 to well over 500,000. Post some of those pics, Cunt.

You only bring up the Bible when you have your head up your liberal ass. You're losing too much oxygen. Pull out.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
But you seem to support an easy escape plan, don't ya? Pull them troops out and send 'em to Okinawa, just like Murtha wants! If trouble brews up again, we can send 'em back.

Why don't you find out what "my plan" actually is dullard, I've only posted it about four or five times now. And Murtha has never said pull them out 'immediately' to Okinawa...

And as opposed to the "trouble" that's been brewing there for longer than any War we've fought this century, save Vietnam?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Terrorists didn't have to worry about killing Iraqis before Saddam was taken out. He was doing enough himself.
...

As opposed to the Shia Militia connected gov't using 'security forces' as death squads? The ones we've put in power, and continue to support?

And like you ever gave a shit about the Kurds, or even knew about Anfal until some right wing propaganda-war site spoon fed it to you in self-serving, heaping doses of feel-good crap. (After the whole "fear Saddam giving terrorists WMDs" thing fell apart).

[ELVIS]

I do agree those pics are sickening...

But are we in a war or what ??

Let's get it over with...

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
Terrorists didn't have to worry about killing Iraqis before Saddam was taken out. He was doing enough himself.

While you are googling pics of victims, why don't you post some of Saddam's victims. Look up 1988 and Kurds for the warm up. Estimates of deaths on Hussein's hands anywhere from 300,000 to well over 500,000. Post some of those pics, Cunt.

You only bring up the Bible when you have your head up your liberal ass. You're losing too much oxygen. Pull out.

Our military has taken over for Saddam and now you support that same brutality.

1988? Who as President then?

The genocide on the African continent voids any sort of mission of mercy argument you can offer.

Nope, I bring up the Bible to expose your absolute hypocrisy.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by ELVIS
But are we in a war or what ??

Let's get it over with...

Nope, Congress never declared war. This was an illegal invasion that turned into an illegal occupation.

How? "Stay the course"? You still haven't explained what this means to you.

[ELVIS]

It means exactly what the President has stated...

[Nickdfresh]

Which was what exactly?

[ELVIS]

I'm quite sure you don't know...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
It means exactly what the President has stated...

On which day? Chimpy changes his story more often than I change socks.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
I'm quite sure you don't know...

And I'm pretty sure you don't either.

[DEMON CUNT]

Elvis can't define it because it is an empty slogan talking point.

[LoungeMachine]

LMAO

ELVIS or WarBOT?

Who has a harder time defending empty rhetoric?


Tough choice.

[ELVIS]

Keep wasting your time...

Meanwhile, Islamofacists are plotting our demise...

[ELVIS]

Read this...

The New World War (http://www.dogchurch.org/scriptorium/ww4.html)


June 28, 1914 — Austrian Archduke Fanz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie are murdered by a member of a Serb nationalist group, who attempted to commit suicide to cover the connections behind his crime. The assassin, Gavrilo Princip, was one of four young men, who were equipped with pistols, bombs, and cyanide capsules by a terrorist group with connections to the Serbian government and army. Thus began the cascade of crises that became World War I, the War of European Monarchies against emerging Liberal Democracies.

December 7, 1941 — Japanese bombers strike the US Pacific Fleet anchored at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in an attempt to deliver a blow so crippling that the US would not be able to interfere with Japan's territorial ambitions in Asia. In response, the United States enters the ongoing World War II, the War of Facism against the Liberal Democracies.

September 11, 2001 — Nineteen young men, sponsored by an Islamic terrorist group with connections to an Islamic Fundamentalist theocracy in Afganistan and an Islamic Fundamentalist sect in Saudi Arabia, hijack four aircraft over the United States. They fly two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, ultimately causing the buildings to collapse. A third plane is flown into the Pentagon in Washington, DC, the nation's capital. They crash the fourth plane into an open field in Pennsylvania when the passengers, who by then had found out the fate of the other aircraft via in-flight telephone calls to relatives, tried to retake control of the plane.

I mention these events one after the other to point up some obvious parallels. September 11, 2001 shares state sponsored terrorism with June 28, 1914, and a devastating sneak attack with December 7, 1941. But there is one more. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians threatens to become one of the cascade of crises that, like the events of 1914, leads the world into war.

We might be able to avoid a hot World War if we can achieve a peaceful "two-state" solution to the "Israel/Palestinian Problem." But we can no longer avoid a prolonged conflict similar to the Cold War of Communism against the Liberal Democracies, which I consider to have been World War III. The War of the Islamofacists (I thank Francis Fukuyama for the term) against the Liberal Democracies was begun by Ayatollah Khomeini, who won its first battle by overthrowing the Shah of Iran and establishing an Islamic Fundamentalist theocracy in that country. That victory, however well deserved, marked the return of militant Islam to the stage of world history, and it isn't going to leave until it plays itself out or is removed by someone else. World War IV is simmering upon us, trying to go from cold to hot.

However, making peace in the Middle East is likely to become possible only after both the Israelis and the Palestinians are exhausted by sufficiently intense and prolonged hostilities. After over 18 months of intifida, both sides want only to beat the other into some kind of submission. As horrible as it is to say this, it appears that not enough people have been maimed and killed for either side to want peace badly enough to forgive the other.

In other words, the prospects for keeping World War IV cold depend less on Israel and Palestine, and more on the good will of the wider Islamic World, the umma, in their terminology. I use this mystical term in the same way I would refer to the Christian World, fragmented as it is, as the Body of Christ. Both terms have a meaning that transcends the vagaries of culture, geography, and current events. If I may borrow a metaphor from Tolkien's Silmarillion, both terms point to themes in the music of world history. And Judaism has a similar term, Eternal Israel.

So the question for the umma, is whether the Islamofacists (totalitarian Facists like the Taliban and al-Quaeda who wrap themselves in culturally Islamic dress) are leading the Way to Truth, or are seducing their children into the Pit of Hell. I think of the lovely, soft-spoken teenaged girl, Ayat al-Akras, who blew herself up in front of an Israeli market in order to shame the young men of the umma into doing likewise. My first thought on hearing the news of this event went immediately to the words of Jesus Christ (known to Muslims as the Prophet Issa):

It would be better for you if a millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea than for you to cause one of these little ones to stumble. — Luke 17:2 (NRSV)

Can terrorism really be the Will of "God, the Compassionate, the Merciful" (as God is so named in beginning of all but one of the 114 chapters of the Qur'an)? Or is there some better, higher way? My friend Bob Mantei maintains that if a few hundred Palestinians were to have sat on the Temple Mount and sung "We Shall Overcome," in Arabic, instead of making intifada, there would have been a Palestinian state a long time ago.

But the issue for the umma is larger and more serious than either the Palestinian situation, or even the prospect of a hot World War against the Liberal Democracies. Bernard Lewis pointed out recently that oil has been a curse, rather than a blessing, for world Islam. In order to consolidate their power, the House of Saud made a bargain with the Wahabbis, a facist Fundamentalist sect that is to Islam what the Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity. The result is that the Wahabbis have access to an effectively infinite supply of oil money, and have used it to set up or take over madrassahs (schools) all over the Islamic world, including many in the United States of America. For a comparison, Lewis invited his listeners to imagine the Klu Klux Klan having the funds to set up schools all over Christendom. A sect that, without access to money and power, would be marginalized and ignored even in its own country, Saudi Arabia, is hijacking Islam.

And they're doing it with our money. There is a commercial on American TV these days to the effect that if you buy drugs, you are supporting terrorists. The same is much more true if you buy oil or gasoline. Thus, part of winning World War IV for the Liberal Democracies may be using nuclear power to dissociate water into its elements and creating a hydrogen fuel cell economy. It is certainly less violent than unrestrained Global Warfare, it is certainly better for the environment than the status quo, and it has the advantage that, by drying up the money supply of the Islamofacists, it may help Islam win back its soul.

Now back to our parallels. World War II started because Europeans were short-sighted and provincial when it came to foreign affairs, and rather loathe to stand up to tyranny until it was too late. The same can be said of the present situation, in which it has become fashionable for the European Left to make common cause with the European Right in condemning Israel, but not the Palestinians in the current conflict. Beyond mere siding the the apparent underdog, they are trying to slough off their existential guilt for the Holocaust by comparing the Israeli devastation of a couple of city blocks in towns (not camps) like Jineen to the Nazi's systematic extermination of European Jewry and Yiddish culture. The comparison is false, as are those who embrace it. I do not to excuse the wantonly hateful acts of many Israeli soldiers and their superiors, but I do want to call the Europeans on their game. Since they live in Liberal Democracies, they are also targets in the War that the Islamofacists insist on having. And once again, the leadership to win the war must come from outside Europe, from the original Liberal Democracy, the US. This is due to European, rather than US exceptionalism — during most of the 20th Century, Europeans have proven themselves exceptionally bad at world affairs.

Hot or cold, World War IV has some themes in common with previous global conflicts, including the ancient conflict between Islam and Christendom. But one theme is coming to the forefront — so-called "asymetric warfare." If you feel that you must strike at an enemy whose strength is vastly superior to yours, what do you do? Historically, inferior forces have used various tactics and devices to "even the odds," ranging from George Washington's crossing of the Delaware to win the first significant victory of the American Revolution in a surprise attack, to the first use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war by the forces of Saddam Hussein. In this war, technology has become so powerful that individuals and small groups of people can wreak mass destruction on lightly defended targets — what the rest of us call civilians. Anthrax is not bulky, and can be smuggled at least as easily as illicit drugs. Radiological dispersal weapons can be made from nuclear reactor waste and ordinary explosives. But, as in the attack of September 11, no material need be smuggled in at all. Like those aircraft, our own technologies can be used as weapons against us. Those involved in the manufacture, handling, transportation and use of any potentially dangerous materials, including gases and chemicals, need to be on their guard.

We had been counting on moral restraint to prevent such occurrences. Prior to September 11, passengers understood that if they did not interfere with the hijackers, they would eventually be released. That the passengers were of no interest to the hijackers other than as a distraction to flying fully fueled aircraft into large buildings full of unsuspecting people, was hitherto unthinkable. But the line has been crossed by our enemies, whose publicly stated goal is to kill as many Americans, Jews, Westerners and other designated enemies as possible, wherever they may be found. If this were the intention of a militarily superior force, no one would hesitate to call it genocide.

The mix of genocidal intent with religious fervor is not new — the Nazis did precisely that, even though they had to invent a pre-Christian pagan legend to achieve it. But the mix of genocidal intent, a hijacked established religion (Islam), and weapons and techniques of mass destruction is new, and leads naturally and insidiously to an ugliness that is sickening to contemplate. If a single person can cause the kill and maim hundreds or thousands, then what is the face of our enemy? Is it the delicate-looking woman wearing a long dress, her head covered by a white shawl, whom I saw walking into the supermarket? She looked neither right nor left, and wore her face like a mask — of determination to strike, or fear of the discrimination that will grow in Western societies as we struggle to respond to attacks from within our midst? If the Islamofacists choose to make this war widespread and intense, it will have a corrupting influence on all its participants, to the detriment of the very people whom the Islamofacists purport to respresent.

Of course, the other pathway for intensifying and widening the war is for the various predominately Islamic nations to try to engage the Liberal Democracies in open conflict, making this less a war of Islamofacists against the Liberal Democracies, and more a war of Islam against the West. That the Islamic nations would be militarily defeated seems almost certain, but their leadership would then pursue further legitimization of "asymetric response" which might then lead the West to try a new round of colonialism. This would only prepare the bitter ground for the seeds of World War V.

There is no way out now, only a way through the present war. We must all recognize it for what it is, and set our faces against totalitarianism and facism whether they take on Islamic or any other cultural trappings. The predominately Islamic countries need to develop legitimate democratic governments that are true to the predominately Islamic character of their peoples, but nevertheless grant full citizenship to non-Islamic peoples in their midsts. The Palestinians are now a nation that needs a state to protect it, but they must learn the discipline to co-exist with their neighbors. And those of us in the Liberal Democracies (including Israel) must stand firm in support of our core values, clinging to the Just War tradition (see Just War: an Exchange by George Weigel and Paul Griffiths in First Things) to guide us in our conduct of this conflict, and to the generosity of the Marshall Plan in cleaning up after its conclusion.



:elvis:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Is that what the libs are saying this week? Last week it was 550,000, the week before that it was 500,000, and so on.

I figure in another 8 weeks, it'll hit the 1,000,000 mark. Eventually there will be more dead in Iraq that the total population of the country.

That's "not what libs are saying," it's what a major study said, the same sort of studies that are cited as Saddam mass-killings in Kurdistan.

According to Warpig: 400,000-500,000 killed during Saddam=good propaganda! 600,000-650,000 killed during and in the aftermath of a US invasion=lib's saying it...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Why don't you put some blame on the radical Islamists...

Again, why don't you answer my questions? I asked WHICH "radical Islamists," the ones we support or the ones the Baathists support?

You seem incapable of distinguishing the difference, it's the very ignorance and lack of nuance that caused this debacle!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Read this...

The New World War (http://www.dogchurch.org/scriptorium/ww4.html)


...:elvis:

What a bunch of complete conspiratorial bullshit!

Yeah, I'll remember this the next time you bust Ford's balls over his 9/11 conspiracy horseshit. And look at the date of the article. April 2002, looks like Elvis was reading his war propaganda to justify killing Iraqis just in time for the invasion.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Over where, Iraq? And of the "radical Islamicists" that we support called the Shia that comprise the Army and the infamous national "police?" One pro-Iranian ones forming death squads that are leaving bodies all over Baghdad? Hey, they're radical Islamicists, but they're OUR radical Islamicists state terrorists...



The the one's we're supporting are the ones that are abducting people in police uniforms, and leaving their bullet-riddled bodies bearing signs of torture around Baghdad. And the sick thing is that many in our gov't barely know the difference between Shia and Sunni religious sects, we just ignorantly and arrogantly lump them in as all the same "Islamofascists."

Such an easy spin of such a complex problem...

Reposted for Warpig...

[FORD]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
That's "not what libs are saying," it's what a major study said, the same sort of studies that are cited as Saddam mass-killings in Kurdistan.

According to Warpig: 400,000-500,000 killed during Saddam=good propaganda! 600,000-650,000 killed during and in the aftermath of a US invasion=lib's saying it...

Not only that, but it took Saddam 30 years to rack up those numbers. Which means that proportionally speaking, the BCE has killed 10 times more Iraqi civillians than Saddam Hussein.

[DEMON CUNT]

Sadly, Elvis does not know what "stay the course" means.

What about "mission accomplished", can you explain that one?

http://hammeroftruth.com/images/articles/461-mission_accomplished.jpg

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Keep wasting your time...

Meanwhile, Islamofacists are plotting our demise...


LMMFAO :rolleyes:


Islamofacists????


Jesus, moron....

TURN OFF THE FAUX


By all means, please point out anything remotely facist about Islamic extremists...


Now Christian extremists....well, that's another matter...