Posted on 12/16/2006 6:51:54 PM PST by Valin
I'm not a rabble rousing "Nuke Mecca", nuke the raghead nutjob.
We are not conducting a "War on Terror".
I want to use nuclear weapons to send a message and END this war before these lunatics nuke us. Harry Truman dropped 2 nukes and a civilization that was willing to fight to the last man, woman and child surrendered and ultimately became an ally.
I would like to spare future generations of a world where theocratic fundamentalist Islamic madmen hold nuclear weapons over our head. The Soviets had common sense, they did not relish death ultimately.
This is a different enemy, an EXTREME enemy, if we don't deal with them in an extreme way, the future is in peril.
It seems the Nuke Mecca Crowd is content to dismiss an article based on its title alone. For those of us who read it, it was very interesting.
And FYI, some branches of the Maliki school are so conservative that they dissuade proselytizing by Muslims who live in non-Muslim lands.
________
So, how do you propose we fight the "Global War on Terror"?
Do you think we should have crushed Hitler when he started to invade his neighbors? Is hindsight 20/20?
Do we need to wait until a terrorist detonates a nuclear bomb before we go nuclear on them?
Do you trust them to NOT use a nuclear weapon against us when they acquire them? Would you trust Hitler to do the same?
What kind of enemy do you think we're facing and how should we confront them?
So your objectively in favor of killing innocent people. Thanks for clearing that up.
No, but that wasn't the issue. You said that it was "nonsense" to spare innocent lives. Your buddy Osama says the same thing.
It's a wonder why these "all Islamics are the devil" types aren't protesting the U.S. for favoring "good" Muslims i.e. the Kurds, instead of fighting them all, if they truly believe that all Muslims feast on Christian and Jewish blood.
Including the ones we helped in Iraq by liberating them?!?
Where would you like to use the nukes on?
Including the ones we helped in Iraq by liberating them?!?
______
Saddam was not a fervent muslim, theocratic zealot. The Iraqi population was thought to be the best hope of establishing a democracy in the Middle East because of the higher percentage of educated people, a country not as steeped in terrorist indoctrination, etc.
Saddam was a brutal dictator who by his actions caused a lot of resentment with his people.
Many of the "religious" Muslims in Iraq ARE working against us.
Where would you like to use the nukes on?
________
I would go right to the heart of the country most likely to use nukes against us, sell them to terrorists to use against us, fund terrorists to use against us. An enemy who has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. An enemy who threatens to share all nuclear secrets with like minded lunatics.
Iran
Oh, I get it then. You weren't exactly for the invasion, were you?
So your objectively in favor of killing innocent people. Thanks for clearing that up.
____
Can you name a WAR where innocent people aren't killed? If civilians are killed by "collateral damage" in a war, that's part of war.
Would we have won WWII without killing civilians? If we fight a utopian war while our enemy has no rules, we will lose.
Was Harry Truman wrong in ending WWII?
It's not so much that he or I are in FAVOR of killing innocent civilians, but the enemy killed our civilians, and will kill more if not stopped. So we save more of OUR innocents from being killed and if THEIR civilians are ravage by war maybe they will think about not supporting the madmen who brought this war upon them.
You crush the enemy into submission/surrender, isn't that the way we won other wars?
I was for an all-out war on all fronts starting in 1993 after the first WTC bombing.
I was in favor of increasing intelligence/espionage spending tenfold. I was in favor of secret death squads breaking down doors of terrorists and executing them, striking fear in the hearts of their comrades.
I was in favor of putting people from Islamic countries LAST in line for entry into the United States.
I was in favor of having a mole/spy in every mosque in the United States.
I was in favor of a real "global war on terror".
Now that it has gotten this far, I'm in favor of using nuclear weapons to snap these people and their populations into reality. That reality being, we are the most powerful country on earth, Allah will not protect you, dismantle your armies immediatley and accept our gracious terms of surrender, no negotiations.
If they don't like it we nuke another city until they like it ad infinitum, if they relish death we will give it to them unless they like to surrender.
If they believe by dying defending Allah is honorable aren't we doing them a favor?
You see, I take people at their word, if you tell me you're going to kill me and my family, I'll kill you first. This is exactly what they have done, are we supposed to dismiss this like we do the crazy uncle talking nonsense at the family reunion or take them at their word?
Careful, there are a few on this thread who have more tender sensiblities. I'm not one of them.
Islam preaches genocide of all who disagree with it.
That's what I see too.
The perfect army. It will be 100 percent loyal with no reward on earth
This business of giving up everything here so they can get worldly pleasures in the afterlife where there are no worldly pleasures is brilliant. The army that fights on without ever getting paid or getting any reward.
The army that will do anything for the rest of their lives for nothing.
Big mo must have died many lives laughing.
We'll kill oursevles first just so we don't
"offend" anyone. They could just sit back and watch us deconstruct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.