Safer now that "W" is gone

Bowing to kings is just the start…



My thoughts are out to those families though. Terrible.

This stuff just didn’t happen when we had Bush in the White House.  The rest of the world knows they can do anything they want without reprisal now.

I agree. I remember the look on Bush’s face on 9/11 when his aide told him what happened at that school. I knew then that al Qaeda f*cked with the wrong man.

Yes sir … You could see the anger boiling.

Don’t worry, the nanny state will take care of us.

I agree. I remember the look on Bush’s face on 9/11 when his aide told him what happened at that school. I knew then that al Qaeda f*cked with the wrong man.

Officials: Fort Hood shootings suspect alive; 12 dead - CNN.com

Since September 11th, we had no attacks while Bush was in office. I will reserve a little judgement, but since Barack has taken office, and we’ve apologized to the world, look what happens. Not only on our soil, but on our military base?

Just because he has a Muslim name doesn’t mean he was Al Qaeda. But it is just a little bit coincidental.

What ??? Morean is in the minority of military folks for approving of Bush?  That is absolutely false. Those who are fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan have seen first hand why we need to take Hussain and Bin Laden out. What about mass graves don’t you understand?

W was loved by the military (from what I have witnessed), I also thought he was very smart. The ability to read a speech off a teleprompter does not equal intelligence to me.



Bush’s biggest failing to me was he was loyal to a fault. He kept people around him that gave him bad advice too long. Also, his lack of vetos drove me nuts.

[quote=Moraen]I agree. I remember the look on Bush’s face on 9/11 when his aide told him what happened at that school. I knew then that al Qaeda f*cked with the wrong man.

You aren’t smarter than W by the way. You just think you are because the media pounded him relentlessly. Obama f***s up words and phrases every week, but you won’t see them on SNL because NBC is in his pants.

Holy crap! The gunman has been posting suicide bombing crap for the past six months. Law enforcement was “watching”. Guess what would have happened in the Bush admin.? Snatched up by CIA agents and beaten until he gave up his homies.

Unf**kingreal! Well technically he hadn’t broken laws so what we needed to do was talk to the young man, support him, and put an arm around him. You know to help him get through a tough time.

Officials: Fort Hood shootings suspect alive; 12 dead - CNN.com

Since September 11th, we had no attacks while Bush was in office. I will reserve a little judgement, but since Barack has taken office, and we’ve apologized to the world, look what happens. Not only on our soil, but on our military base?

Just because he has a Muslim name doesn’t mean he was Al Qaeda. But it is just a little bit coincidental.

Holy crap! The gunman has been posting suicide bombing crap for the past six months. Law enforcement was “watching”. Guess what would have happened in the Bush admin.? Snatched up by CIA agents and beaten until he gave up his homies.

[quote=Hey Kool-Aid] 

Holy crap! The gunman has been posting suicide bombing crap for the past six months. Law enforcement was “watching”. Guess what would have happened in the Bush admin.? Snatched up by CIA agents and beaten until he gave up his homies.

3rd - here is an article from Foxnews.  It talks near the bottom about how he came to law enforcements attention 6 months ago.  I usually like to pull news from several different sources, since I don’t trust them.  Sometimes fox reports things cnn doesn’t and vice versa.

Also, HKA - You can read in here how Hassan didn’t like the wars and how he frequently got into arguments with other officers.  That one’s on CNN as well.  Not on MSNBC though.

Morean - sorry for your loss. As for Bush, I think history will show he was a lot better President than he is currently given credit for. Whether you voted for or against him, he did not govern based on polling or for acceptance from foreign leaders. For the most part, he knew who his friends were and who were wolves in sheeps clothing. He was not afraid to make a decision and was a decisive leader and had the best interest of the USA at heart even at the cost of his own political capital. In my opinion, he was the best man for the time period he was President.

[quote=Hey Kool-Aid] 

W was loved by the military (from what I have witnessed), I also thought he was very smart. The ability to read a speech off a teleprompter does not equal intelligence to me.

Bush’s biggest failing to me was he was loyal to a fault. He kept people around him that gave him bad advice too long. Also, his lack of vetos drove me nuts.

Bush was pretty smart. UPT is difficult enough. Not only does it require a lot of studying, but there is a TON of high pressure situations known as “wing standup” EVERY DAY. Forget Harvard and Yale. That junk is tough.



Being articulate does not equate to intelligence. Creflo Dollar is articulate. So is Tom Cruise.

Morean - sorry for your loss. As for Bush, I think history will show he was a lot better President than he is currently given credit for. Whether you voted for or against him, he did not govern based on polling or for acceptance from foreign leaders. For the most part, he knew who his friends were and who were wolves in sheeps clothing. He was not afraid to make a decision and was a decisive leader and had the best interest of the USA at heart even at the cost of his own political capital. In my opinion, he was the best man for the time period he was President.

This thread is tongue in cheek right? you guys aren’t being serious?

[quote=Spaceman Spiff][quote=Hey Kool-Aid] 

Spiff  -   If you wanna talk corruption let’s discuss Oil and Halliburton or why we invaded Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia where the majority of Al Queda hail from!

[quote=BondGuy]This thread is tongue in cheek right? you guys aren’t being serious?

Clinton should have taken care of bin Laden before he left office.  Bush too.  After the Cole though, Clinton could have done what was needed. 

Bush would not likely have gotten approval for that.  And you know it.

As for Iraq - I was there.  Do you want to know WHY we hadn’t had any attacks here?  Because they were all pouring in from Iran and Syria and other places trying to kill soldiers (you know, people who are trained to fight).

I agree, the Cole was a shot across our bow which Clinton ignored. 

Bush was epic.

Let’s not forget about the Muslim who threw a grenade into the command tent in Kuwait. There’s a reason no one beneath the rank of E-6 was given grenades the entire time I was in Iraq.



Is it possible that ALL extremist Muslims are mentally ill?

Possible and probable.

Clinton also ignored the Embassy bombings and countless other attacks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4677978/ns/world_news-hunt_for_alqaida/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3618762.stm

Let me ask everybody something.



If you were thinking of going on a rampage or blowing someone up, and you knew that you might be tortured, be it waterboarding, electrodes on your nipples, etc., would you think twice?



Now, let’s assume the person who was letting the CIA torture you was no longer able to let that happen (in other words, Bush leaves office and Obama enters office) and says we are going to give you a fair trial in which you can be exonerated on a technicality.



My guess is, you would not think twice. Would you?

Morean was there and was fighting. You other chumps are getting your information from Michael Moore and Cable News. I will believe Morean and the others I have talked to who have fought for us.

[quote=Moraen]Let me ask everybody something.

If you were thinking of going on a rampage or blowing someone up, and you knew that you might be tortured, be it waterboarding, electrodes on your nipples, etc., would you think twice?

Now, let’s assume the person who was letting the CIA torture you was no longer able to let that happen (in other words, Bush leaves office and Obama enters office) and says we are going to give you a fair trial in which you can be exonerated on a technicality.

My guess is, you would not think twice. Would you?[/quote] 

, its not that bad actually once the scabs fall off

Moraen, maybe i missed something in the news cycle? Is the Ft Hood shooter a terrorist? or is he just a Muslim? Or, is that one in the same to you? Because, unless i missed the terrorist connection, that’s how you are coming off. Before you go and burn down the local Mosque you need to take stock. Some of your rant is way off the hook.

[quote=BondGuy]Moraen, maybe i missed something in the news cycle? Is the Ft Hood shooter a terrorist? or is he just a Muslim? 

[quote=BondGuy]Moraen, maybe i missed something in the news cycle? Is the Ft Hood shooter a terrorist? or is he just a Muslim? Or, is that one in the same to you? Because, unless i missed the terrorist connection, that’s how you are coming off. Before you go and burn down the local Mosque you need to take stock. Some of your rant is way off the hook.

I suppose all of you Bush supporters will be voting Palin in 2012?

PIRA(provisional Irish Republican Army)
CIRA(Continuity Irish Republican Army)
RIRA(Real Irish Republican Army)
INLA(Irish National Liberation Army)
Fianna na hEireann
IPLO(Irish People’s Liberation Organisation)
Saor Eire
UDA(Ulster Defence Army)
UVF(Ulster Volunteer Force)
UFF(Ulster Freedom Fighters)
Red Hand Defenders
Red Hand Commandos
LVF(Loyalist Volunteer Force)
Orange Volunteers

I voted for Bush both times, then I voted for Obama.  I can’t stand Palin.

Palin is hot. That’s about it.



First of all, I don’t vote except in local elections. Your vote doesn’t count.



I meant the recession in 2000. You can blame that on a guy who was in office for two months?



The root cause of the financial crisis was the loosening of credit restrictions. Too many people were “owning the American Dream”. Way too many. These policies were enacted by the Clinton Administration with a Republican Congress. Both parties complicit. You cannot lay the blame for that at Bush’s feet.



As for me being a foreign policy expert - you are correct. I am, however a security expert. Before I was in this business, I was board certified in Security Management (CPP). In addition, most of my friends are foreign policy experts, either attending the Naval war college, or CGSC, completing Master’s and Ph.D’s in foreign affairs, low impact operations and international relations. I have helped them edit their theses and dissertations.



While I don’t speak for the entire military, I can argue that those I encounter (80% of my clients are military or related to military) are pro-Bush. And bear him no ill will and in fact supported most of his policies. These people range in rank from E-4 to O-8 (Specialist to Major General). They are logisticians, infantry, chemical corps, artillery (yes Army, I took one of your peeps).



On this subject I KNOW what I’m talking about.



In addition, the man is a terrorist, because he enacted an event of terror (whether he is a member of al Qaeda - I don’t know). The simple fact of the matter is that he was a Muslim and a terrorist, therefore he was a Muslim terrorist. He shouted “Allah Akbar” (God is great) before he went on his rampage. To think that there isn’t a connection between him being a Muslim and what he did is naive at best and irresponsible at worst.

The IRA are freedom fighters, they attack their occupiers.

Hah!  I believed that at one point too.

HKA - You think someone who spent a year arresting terrorists crossing the borders doesn’t know anything about policies? You don’t think someone who spent a year sleeping literally 2 inches from soldiers EVERY day doesn’t know what’s on that persons mind or what they think?



It’s simple statistics. While I would not go as far as to say the five people in our company who were anti-Bush are outliers, I will say they are obviously in the clear minority.



We have seen over 2 million troops cycle through the various deployment zones in the last eight years. That’s approximately 100,000 people who are anti-Bush. I would even go as high as 300,000, since infantry units are mostly white males.



Do you know how these people think? Have you ever spoken to a native Afghani or Iraqi or Syrian or Iranian (interestingly enough, Iran is the closest to Western thought).



An Iraqi thinks that it is wrong to sleep with a woman before you are married, but it’s ok to f*ck a goat. An Afghani thinks both are wrong (won’t stop some of them), but it is ok to bang little boys.



Also, common knowledge is that Muslim countries abhor pornography. Don’t bring it, they say. You’ll piss these people off. What is the first thing you see when you are on a major road in these countries? Little boys selling porn DVDs of chicks giving dogs blowjobs. Kids!



What you hear on the news and what you hear from Harvard grads and Princeton grads and pundits who have “researched” these areas is crap. You have to be there. If not, you don’t know what you are talking about.

I also don’t think we need to be burning mosques, but there is nothing wrong with profiling them.



I have olive skin and could be mistaken for Middle Eastern. I have been searched at the airports more times than I can count. Even when coming back from deployment on leave and going BACK to Iraq after that. Do you know how galling that is?



But it’s necessary. And if it were up to me, I wouldn’t be “randomly” searched. I’d be the guy they pull out of line every time. I’d be the guy that they alert the FBI for if I buy fertilizer or a freakin’ bow and arrow. They should profile me.



You do that, and you keep this country safe. You don’t, and you treat everybody the same, and you get what happened yesterday.

I remember the 'nam … that shyt was crazy.

Voltmoie:<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Have you every read the Korean?

Islam forbids conversion by the sword of people of the Book (Judaism and Christian).

Islam holds Moses and Jesus as prophets. Islam believes that Jesus was born to a virgin. Jew’s Christian and Muslims all worship the same God.

Islam is not the problem; it is the fundamentalist that are the problem. I do not care if they are Christian, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists or whom ever they worship it is fundamentalist that are the problem.

Officials: Fort Hood shootings suspect alive; 12 dead - CNN.com Since September 11th, we had no attacks while Bush was in office. I will reserve a little judgement, but since Barack has taken office, and we’ve apologized to the world, look what happens. Not only on our soil, but on our military base?

Just because he has a Muslim name doesn’t mean he was Al Qaeda. But it is just a little bit coincidental.

Its not a question as to whether or not Volt has read the Korean, its have these terrorists ?

[quote=JackBlack]

Jew’s Christian and Muslims all worship the same God. 

[quote=Moraen]HKA - You think someone who spent a year arresting terrorists crossing the borders doesn’t know anything about policies? You don’t think someone who spent a year sleeping literally 2 inches from soldiers EVERY day doesn’t know what’s on that persons mind or what they think?

It’s simple statistics. While I would not go as far as to say the five people in our company who were anti-Bush are outliers, I will say they are obviously in the clear minority.

We have seen over 2 million troops cycle through the various deployment zones in the last eight years. That’s approximately 100,000 people who are anti-Bush. I would even go as high as 300,000, since infantry units are mostly white males.

Do you know how these people think? Have you ever spoken to a native Afghani or Iraqi or Syrian or Iranian (interestingly enough, Iran is the closest to Western thought).

An Iraqi thinks that it is wrong to sleep with a woman before you are married, but it’s ok to f*ck a goat.

Terrorism- The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

HKA - You think someone who spent a year arresting terrorists crossing the borders doesn’t know anything about policies? I never said you don’t know anything about policies…just said you can’t speak for all soldiers.  You don’t think someone who spent a year sleeping literally 2 inches from soldiers EVERY day doesn’t know what’s on that persons mind or what they think?

It’s simple statistics. While I would not go as far as to say the five people in our company who were anti-Bush are outliers, I will say they are obviously in the clear minority.

We have seen over 2 million troops cycle through the various deployment zones in the last eight years. That’s approximately 100,000 people who are anti-Bush. I would even go as high as 300,000, since infantry units are mostly white males.

Do you know how these people think? Have you ever spoken to a native Afghani or Iraqi or Syrian or Iranian (interestingly enough, Iran is the closest to Western thought).  yes, many times, however, you still don’t always know how they think.

An Iraqi thinks that it is wrong to sleep with a woman before you are married, but it’s ok to f*ck a goat. An Afghani thinks both are wrong (won’t stop some of them), but it is ok to bang little boys.

Also, common knowledge is that Muslim countries abhor pornography. Don’t bring it, they say. You’ll piss these people off. What is the first thing you see when you are on a major road in these countries? Little boys selling porn DVDs of chicks giving dogs blowjobs. Kids!

What you hear on the news and what you hear from Harvard grads and Princeton grads and pundits who have “researched” these areas is crap. You have to be there. If not, you don’t know what you are talking about.

Palin is hot. That’s about it. true

First of all, I don’t vote except in local elections. Your vote doesn’t count.  agreed

I meant the recession in 2000. You can blame that on a guy who was in office for two months? but you can blame the guy who was in office for the next 8 years for making it worse as opposed to cleaning it up!

The root cause of the financial crisis was the loosening of credit restrictions. Too many people were “owning the American Dream”. Way too many. These policies were enacted by the Clinton Administration with a Republican Congress. Both parties complicit. You cannot lay the blame for that at Bush’s feet.  see above

As for me being a foreign policy expert - you are correct. I am, however a security expert. Before I was in this business, I was board certified in Security Management (CPP). In addition, most of my friends are foreign policy experts, either attending the Naval war college, or CGSC, completing Master’s and Ph.D’s in foreign affairs, low impact operations and international relations. I have helped them edit their theses and dissertations.

While I don’t speak for the entire military, I can argue that those I encounter (80% of my clients are military or related to military) are pro-Bush. And bear him no ill will and in fact supported most of his policies. These people range in rank from E-4 to O-8 (Specialist to Major General). They are logisticians, infantry, chemical corps, artillery (yes Army, I took one of your peeps).

On this subject I KNOW what I’m talking about.

In addition, the man is a terrorist, because he enacted an event of terror (whether he is a member of al Qaeda - I don’t know). The simple fact of the matter is that he was a Muslim and a terrorist, therefore he was a Muslim terrorist. He shouted “Allah Akbar” (God is great) before he went on his rampage. To think that there isn’t a connection between him being a Muslim and what he did is naive at best and irresponsible at worst.  ok…then why didn’t we attack the Saudi’s as well…their top terrorists, OBL included are Saudi?

[quote=JackBlack]

Voltmoie:<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Have you every read the Korean?

Islam forbids conversion by the sword of people of the Book (Judaism and Christian).

Islam holds Moses and Jesus as prophets. Islam believes that Jesus was born to a virgin. Jew’s Christian and Muslims all worship the same God.

Islam is not the problem; it is the fundamentalist that are the problem. I do not care if they are Christian, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists or whom ever they worship it is fundamentalist that are the problem.

Agree about spirited debate.  You are a good man, HKA.

We didn’t attack the Saudi’s because their GOVERNMENT has not sponsored terror.  The King there is the most liberal Muslim in the world.  He commutes sentences for women for crying out loud. 

The Taliban - corrupt regime that took away women’s rights and sponsored terrorism (bin Laden)

Saddam Hussein - despot who has killed his own people and was anti-American.  attempted to assassinate an  ex-president.  He had terrorist training camps (not alQaeda), but may have been willing to sell WMD’s to al Qaeda.  Before anybody says anything like, “there were no WMDs”.  In fact, there were.  As a matter of fact, three weeks in country, in the mountains West of Baghdad, about twenty miles out of town of 300 Iraqis named Mandali, my unit came upon a huge cache of mustard gas mortar shells.  Who knows what else was out there?

Let me tell you something.  I despise Jimmy Carter as a person and as  President.  But since he never betrayed this country (that I now of), I honor him (and Obama) as the President and representative of my country.  If someone attempted to assassinate him, I would move Heaven and Earth to teach them a lesson.

Now, Bush had the added responsibility that it was his dad.  But, whatever.

Anyway, just because someone is a Saudi national, doesn’t mean you attack the Saudi government (fyi - bin Laden hates the Saudi government - you don’t invade an ally.  That’s why we haven’t invaded Pakistan).

Technically, the three religions do worship the same God.  But you can’t really call them the same God since the preception of “God” varies greatly between the religions on key issues and attitudes.

<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Volt:

I am not wrong about the three monotheistic religions worshiping the same God. Islam believes that Jesus was a prophet. Islam believes that Moses was a prophet. I have read the religious text of all the major religions in the world.

President Bush believes that Muslims and Christian worship the same God.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=193746&page=1&page=1

Pope Benedict says that Muslims and Christian worship that same God.

http://civicsnews.blogspot.com/2009/05/pope-speech-muslims-christians-worship.html

See my above post.

Wet_Blanket:

[quote=JackBlack]Wet_Blanket:

Wet_Blanket:

[quote=JackBlack]Wet_Blanket:

[quote=Moraen]Officials: Fort Hood shootings suspect alive; 12 dead - CNN.com Since September 11th, we had no attacks while Bush was in office. I will reserve a little judgement, but since Barack has taken office, and we’ve apologized to the world, look what happens. Not only on our soil, but on our military base?

Just because he has a Muslim name doesn’t mean he was Al Qaeda. But it is just a little bit coincidental.

[quote=Ron 14][quote=Moraen]Officials: Fort Hood shootings suspect alive; 12 dead - CNN.com Since September 11th, we had no attacks while Bush was in office. I will reserve a little judgement, but since Barack has taken office, and we’ve apologized to the world, look what happens. Not only on our soil, but on our military base?

Just because he has a Muslim name doesn’t mean he was Al Qaeda. But it is just a little bit coincidental.

He'll be screwed, Bondguy does not think you should carry guns ... you can beat the evil-doers off with a big fat yeild.

Moraen:

 First, I want to thank you for your service to our country. I have to disagree with you about torture. If it is unlawful for someone to torture a <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US citizen, then it should be unlawful to torture someone who is not a US citizen. Your argument that people are less likely to attack us if we torture is not relevant. Just because something is effective does not make if moral.  Would you kill the infant son of a terrorist as punishment? That might stop a few attacks, but would it be moral? The US is the greatest country in the world. We are better then the terrorist’s. If we torture people it degrades us, it brings us down to the terrorist’s level. It may allow us to win the battle, but in my opinion it may cause use to lose the war. <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

There is no such thing as fairness in this war. They don't follow rules that are "fair" or "moral". Read the book  Lone Survivor and ask Marcus Luttrell about fairness. This war is about protecting freedom. Ok, we waterboard, they cut off heads with swords. Take your pick.

[quote=Moraen]  

Ron:

Two wrongs do not make a right. I believe it is wrong when the terrorist behead someone. I believe it is wrong when we waterboard someone.  The <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />United State’s has imprisoned people for waterboarding US citizens.

Yukio Asano was given a 15-year sentence for waterboarding after WWII.

War is about breaking the spirit and will of your enemy.  You don’t do that by fighting with rules.  Unleash hell … That’s what I expect of my military, cia, nsa, and every other agency.  Make no mistake, we are at war.  UNLEASH HELL!

Rape their wives, kill their children, put their heads on pikes.  You damn hippie liberals can read all the books you want but unless you’ve put on the uniform you opinion means JACK to me.

One other thing- pinning the Cole non response on Clinton. Due process was taking place. That is, an investigation, to get it right. By the time clinton left office the final report had not been written. There was only prelimiary evidence that Al-Qaeda was involved. Only after clinton left office was there enough evidence to retaliate. Of course clinton could have gone off half c***ed and attacked every arab country hoping one of them held the terrorist. Rightly so, he didn’t do that.

[quote=BondGuy]One other thing- pinning the Cole non response on Clinton. Due process was taking place. That is, an investigation, to get it right. By the time clinton left office the final report had not been written. There was only prelimiary evidence that Al-Qaeda was involved. Only after clinton left office was there enough evidence to retaliate. Of course clinton could have gone off half c***ed and attacked every arab country hoping one of them held the terrorist. Rightly so, he didn’t do that. [/quote]

Classic!

The exact moment the attack was reported.  THE MOMENT.  I knew who was responsible.  You don’t need a report to tell you a chick is fat.

[quote=BondGuy]One other thing- pinning the Cole non response on Clinton. Due process was taking place. That is, an investigation, to get it right. By the time clinton left office the final report had not been written. There was only prelimiary evidence that Al-Qaeda was involved. Only after clinton left office was there enough evidence to retaliate. Of course clinton could have gone off half c***ed and attacked every arab country hoping one of them held the terrorist. Rightly so, he didn’t do that. [/quote]

Classic!

The exact moment the attack was reported.  THE MOMENT.  I knew who was responsible.  You don’t need a report to tell you a chick is fat.

If you can’t say it in three sentences it’s not worth saying.


If our leaders had thought like me we would not have had 9/11 or the Iraq war. For groups without countries you simply cut the head off the chicken.  Ponder that for a bit.

Did you know that only 8% of voters in New York City voted for George Bush in 2004? (Even after NY hosted the RNC convention)

When Bush was “deer in the headlights” on 9/11, if he was really planning his counter-attack…Why wasn’t he on the phone?

I think most people who love the military, love Bush. When they were under Clinton, they didn’t get to kill anyone.

I think Obama is doing a great job.

It really pissed me off that Bush took so many vacation days.

I do not believe war will ever break the spirit of my enemy…because I believe no military force could ever break my spirit.

I believe people who have unwavering support for a single political party are the enemy of political progress.  

[quote=Still@jones]Did you know that only 8% of voters in New York City voted for George Bush in 2004? (Even after NY hosted the RNC convention)

When Bush was “deer in the headlights” on 9/11, if he was really planning his counter-attack…Why wasn’t he on the phone?

I think most people who love the military, love Bush. When they were under Clinton, they didn’t get to kill anyone.

I think Obama is doing a great job.

It really pissed me off that Bush took so many vacation days.

I do not believe war will ever break the spirit of my enemy…because I believe no military force could ever break my spirit.

I believe people who have unwavering support for a single political party are the enemy of political progress.  


[/quote]

Shut up    http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091027/pl_politico/28764

[quote=BondGuy] 

I have to chime in here.  This guy at Fort Hood was a coward and an insult to all those who have earned their commission as Officers.  This guy should have been killed and I don’t understand why they spent resources to keep him alive.  But this guy is a terrorist just as much as SGT John Russell who attacked his own earlier this year at Camp Liberty in Baghdad. 

Here’s a newsflash.  Everybody knows that I was in the Army (duh, my id gave that away).  I’m also an American Muslim myself.  I was born and raised here in the states and have plenty of other family members who served as well.  Colin Powell mentioned CPL Kareem Khan who was killed in combat in Iraq and there are over 10,000 American Muslims in the Armed forces.  Obviously some warning signs were missed with this guy but the talk of expelling Muslims from the military and the country is ridiculous.  I dare anyone to question my patriotism.  When my unit got involved in our first firefight, guess who was the first one to open up? When it came to interrogating people on the streets after my vehicle got hit with the second IED in as many weeks, who do you think roughed up these guys on the streets first? When I got my top secret clearance, it took longer than my colleagues and I completely understood that; nothing wrong with that.  I think there should be more background searches for Muslim soldiers when they first enlist just like there should be more background searches for all races to make sure we’re not helping to train gangmembers (crips, bloods, skinheads, etc.). 

This guy was sick, plain and simple.  This guy should die, plain and simple.  But please do not demonize all Muslims because there have been plenty of non-Muslims who kill “because God told them to” and there is no mention of Christian or Jewish terrorists. 

I’m so taken aback with this ass clown.  When we got ready for
deployment doing the same things the victims were doing, we were
nervous but we felt safe being that we were on our military post.  When
we got back from Iraq, we did the same things and felt such a sigh of
relief that no one was shooting at us anymore.  I can’t even imagine
how that would have felt while we were getting our updated
immunizations and records that some coward came in shooting. 
Unbelievable . . . I hope this guy dies in his hospital bed.  

[quote=hotair1]

[quote=Still@jones]Did you know that only 8% of voters in New York City voted for George Bush in 2004? (Even after NY hosted the RNC convention)

When Bush was “deer in the headlights” on 9/11, if he was really planning his counter-attack…Why wasn’t he on the phone?

I think most people who love the military, love Bush. When they were under Clinton, they didn’t get to kill anyone.

I think Obama is doing a great job.

It really pissed me off that Bush took so many vacation days.

I do not believe war will ever break the spirit of my enemy…because I believe no military force could ever break my spirit.

I believe people who have unwavering support for a single political party are the enemy of political progress. 
[/quote]

Shut up    http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091027/pl_politico/28764
[/quote]

Come on…the guy was holed up at his “ranch” for about 1/4 of his presidency…

See, I can respect what Army has to say, although I will disagree with him. One of our finest soldiers was Muslim. A right bastard in a fight. He even saved my life once.



He also didn’t yell Alluah Akbar before the fight. He was killing for his country. He did his job, and did it well, and I still don’t know how much it tore him up to kill fellow Muslims. I, for one, have no problem slaughtering Catholics (especially the ones who prey on little kids).



I would argue, however, that John Russell was a terrorist as much as any other. And that his intent was to reduce the fighting effectiveness of the United States Army against a Muslim country. I feel it is the same with this ass clown.

One other thing- pinning the Cole non response on Clinton. Due process was taking place. That is, an investigation, to get it right. By the time clinton left office the final report had not been written. There was only prelimiary evidence that Al-Qaeda was involved. Only after clinton left office was there enough evidence to retaliate. Of course clinton could have gone off half c***ed and attacked every arab country hoping one of them held the terrorist. Rightly so, he didn’t do that.

BG - you keep waiting for proof, I will keep my family safe by paying more attention to Muslims, red-haired Irishmen, Hispanic thugs, black thugs, white thugs, Catholic priests, pedophile-looking guys at the grocery store and men who start at my wife.



I will keep my knife sharp, and my wits about me.



I will kill anybody who tries to harm them. No due process. But a ton of justice.

[quote=Moraen]…his intent was to reduce the fighting effectiveness of the United States Army…[/quote]

All good stuff Morean, however I have to disagree with this point for both Russell and the Fort Hood guy. I think they just went nutz…

[quote=Moraen]See, I can respect what Army has to say, although I will
disagree with him. One of our finest soldiers was Muslim. A right
bastard in a fight. He even saved my life once.



He also didn’t yell Alluah Akbar before the fight. He was killing
for his country. He did his job, and did it well, and I still don’t
know how much it tore him up to kill fellow Muslims. I, for one, have
no problem slaughtering Catholics (especially the ones who prey on
little kids).


I would argue, however, that John Russell was a terrorist as much
as any other. And that his intent was to reduce the fighting
effectiveness of the United States Army against a Muslim country. I
feel it is the same with this ass clown.[/quote]



Moraen, my point was to say that John Russell was a terrorist as well
but that’s not what the MSM have labeled him as.  The VA Tech killer
was a terrorist as well but he wasn’t labeled that; he was labeled just
a mass murderer. 



And lastly, the Commanding General of Fort Hood has not confirmed the
reports of him yelling Allahu Akbar.  If the CG and the FBI confirm
that, then I’ll believe it.  I’m not saying that he didn’t say that but
unconfirmed reports don’t mean much to me.  For now, we know this guy
is a scumbag and a terrorist. 

 

They knew where bin Laden was. This was before he was hiding.

bin Laden went in to hiding prior to 9/11. As for Bush having eight years to find him - You could put 500,000 troops in those mountains and all you would get would be a few killed soldiers who fell off the mountain.

Anybody who has been mountain climbing knows what I’m talking about - try doing that with 80 - 120 pounds of gear. Good luck.

[quote=army13A] [quote=Moraen]See, I can respect what Army has to say, although I will

disagree with him. One of our finest soldiers was Muslim. A right

bastard in a fight. He even saved my life once.



He also didn’t yell Alluah Akbar before the fight. He was killing

for his country. He did his job, and did it well, and I still don’t

know how much it tore him up to kill fellow Muslims. I, for one, have

no problem slaughtering Catholics (especially the ones who prey on

little kids).

I would argue, however, that John Russell was a terrorist as much

as any other. And that his intent was to reduce the fighting

effectiveness of the United States Army against a Muslim country. I

feel it is the same with this ass clown.[/quote]



Moraen, my point was to say that John Russell was a terrorist as well

but that’s not what the MSM have labeled him as. The VA Tech killer

was a terrorist as well but he wasn’t labeled that; he was labeled just

a mass murderer.



And lastly, the Commanding General of Fort Hood has not confirmed the

reports of him yelling Allahu Akbar. If the CG and the FBI confirm

that, then I’ll believe it. I’m not saying that he didn’t say that but

unconfirmed reports don’t mean much to me. For now, we know this guy

is a scumbag and a terrorist.

[/quote]



Yep. My first post said I would reserve judgement until all of the facts were known. Right now, it just looks suspicious, and we should act accordingly. Was it part of a larger attack? Was it a lone crazy? What about Ft. Bragg, Ft. Drum, Ft. Carson? It doesn’t appear coordinated, but attacks keep gaining in sophistication.



BG - bin Laden was actually in Kabul up until May of 2001. The Taliban (a disgusting organization who treats women like crap) were buddies with him. Mullah Omar had a disagreement with bin Laden in May and that’s when he took to the mountains. Bush had five months to nab him (and should have - should have been a priority) but we were in the middle of a recession at the time.



BG - You are right, it can be spun many different ways. I know what others in the counterterrorism, Army intel people have told me as far as what has happened in the past.



Here’s another nugget that most people may not know about. The United flight that was taken over by Americans - plans showed that it was supposed to crash in to the inner ring of the Pentagon (not Capital HIll or the White House) in order to trap those inside.



That one was from THE top counterintelligence operative from 1997-2003 (notice I did not say top counterintelligence official).



The VT killer was a terrorist, and so was the guy in Chapel Hill who killed people with his car. The intent was to kill ROTC students in the latter case. A clear attack on our nation’s military. This incident appears so as well. Time will tell.



If I am wrong, I have no problem admitting and apologizing. But like I said, I reserved judgement. What pisses me off is that they had been watching the guy for six months (the FBI DID confirm that).



BG - one final thing since I was all over the place on this post. 500k troops is NOT better than 15k. And we had more than that at first. If you are combing the mountains with that many troops, it is disaster waiting to strike.



Personally, you should have battalions of 10th Mountain rotating through with SF teams (and SEALS I guess, possibly Combat Controllers to call in air strikes). Smaller teams have a much better chance.



You also have to consider, the more combat troops you send (artillery, armor, infantry), the more support you have to send.

BG - you keep waiting for proof, I will keep my family safe by paying more attention to Muslims, red-haired Irishmen, Hispanic thugs, black thugs, white thugs, Catholic priests, pedophile-looking guys at the grocery store and men who start at my wife.

I will keep my knife sharp, and my wits about me.

I will kill anybody who tries to harm them. No due process. But a ton of justice.

Here is something else about the love affair with Barack. He is in Washington instead of Texas right now. Why? There is no way you can deny that had this been Bush’s watch he would have been crucified. Why isn’t he visiting with the families? Not saying he should, but look at the double standard.

[quote=Moraen] [quote=army13A] [quote=Moraen]See, I can respect what Army has to say, although I will

disagree with him. One of our finest soldiers was Muslim. A right

bastard in a fight. He even saved my life once.



He also didn’t yell Alluah Akbar before the fight. He was killing

for his country. He did his job, and did it well, and I still don’t

know how much it tore him up to kill fellow Muslims. I, for one, have

no problem slaughtering Catholics (especially the ones who prey on

little kids).

I would argue, however, that John Russell was a terrorist as much

as any other. And that his intent was to reduce the fighting

effectiveness of the United States Army against a Muslim country. I

feel it is the same with this ass clown.[/quote]



Moraen, my point was to say that John Russell was a terrorist as well

but that’s not what the MSM have labeled him as.  The VA Tech killer

was a terrorist as well but he wasn’t labeled that; he was labeled just

a mass murderer. 



And lastly, the Commanding General of Fort Hood has not confirmed the

reports of him yelling Allahu Akbar.  If the CG and the FBI confirm

that, then I’ll believe it.  I’m not saying that he didn’t say that but

unconfirmed reports don’t mean much to me.  For now, we know this guy

is a scumbag and a terrorist. 

[/quote]



Yep. My first post said I would reserve judgement until all of the facts were known. Right now, it just looks suspicious, and we should act accordingly. Was it part of a larger attack? Was it a lone crazy? What about Ft. Bragg, Ft. Drum, Ft. Carson? It doesn’t appear coordinated, but attacks keep gaining in sophistication.



BG - bin Laden was actually in Kabul up until May of 2001. The Taliban (a disgusting organization who treats women like crap) were buddies with him. Mullah Omar had a disagreement with bin Laden in May and that’s when he took to the mountains. Bush had five months to nab him (and should have - should have been a priority) but we were in the middle of a recession at the time.



BG - You are right, it can be spun many different ways. I know what others in the counterterrorism, Army intel people have told me as far as what has happened in the past.



Here’s another nugget that most people may not know about. The United flight that was taken over by Americans - plans showed that it was supposed to crash in to the inner ring of the Pentagon (not Capital HIll or the White House) in order to trap those inside.



That one was from THE top counterintelligence operative from 1997-2003 (notice I did not say top counterintelligence official).



The VT killer was a terrorist, and so was the guy in Chapel Hill who killed people with his car. The intent was to kill ROTC students in the latter case. A clear attack on our nation’s military. This incident appears so as well. Time will tell.



If I am wrong, I have no problem admitting and apologizing. But like I said, I reserved judgement. What pisses me off is that they had been watching the guy for six months (the FBI DID confirm that).[/quote]

That’s what pisses me off too.  The FBI was watching him and nothing happened? Also all of these former colleagues and classmates NOW coming out about his views and what not.  No one thought to throw up a serious red flag? That’s why some of it is hard to believe.  Take for example that retired COL that Fox interviewed.  He made some accusations about what this nutjob said.  “Strapping up and bombing Times Square? Raising up against the aggressors”? He heard there was an investigation but he retired and didn’t think of it anymore? Me personally, if I knew of an Officer who was talking that kind of stuff out in the open, I wouldn’t stop banging down the chain of command until there was some serious investigations.  Add on top of the fact that his background, I wouldn’t just “retire” and be like “oh well, they’ll deal with it”.  It doesn’t add up. 

Fox, like MSNBC, has a clear history of only talking about things that reinforce their point of view.  That’s why I try to get my info from various sources (all news media, friends “in the know” and elsewhere).

Moraen- on the troops. The point is the effort to get bin laden was half -assed. I remember the number as 15K, but even if it was 25k it doesn't matter. The outcome was the same- failure. What first rate army turns over the most important job to tribal leaders? That's what we did when we beleived we had Osama cornered. it was a joke! We couldn't committ more troops to Afghanistan because of the pending deployment to iraq and our leaders lack of success in lacing together a meaningful coalition. As I've said, getting Bin Laden was back burner.

[quote=BondGuy]

Moraen- on the troops. The point is the effort to get bin laden was half -assed. I remember the number as 15K, but even if it was 25k it doesn’t matter. The outcome was the same- failure. What first rate army turns over the most important job to tribal leaders? That’s what we did when we beleived we had Osama cornered. it was a joke! We couldn’t committ more troops to Afghanistan because of the pending deployment to iraq and our leaders lack of success in lacing together a meaningful coalition. As I’ve said, getting Bin Laden was back burner.

getting the truth without the spin is harder and harder. Fox way too right, MSNBC ridiculously left, Cnn left of center,but usually good with the facts before the spin machine starts. ABC OK, usually. I read a lot as well. But it's tough.

I think some folks posting on this thread would benefit for doing a little reading on Alexander the Great and his time in Afghanistan. You’d also do yourself a favor to see how long the Marshall Plan took to implement. Eight years in a drop in the bucket in the well of history.  You have the benefit of hindsight with respect to battles yes … you are Generals in a forum.

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=BondGuy]

getting the truth without the spin is harder and harder. Fox way too right, MSNBC ridiculously left, Cnn left of center,but usually good with the facts before the spin machine starts. ABC OK, usually. I read a lot as well. But it’s tough.

One comment on the “torture is wrong”.



It sure is. But there’s a reason we have SERE school. The world tortures and it WORKS. They wouldn’t train people to withstand it if it didn’t.



Like volt said. War is hell. If you don’t think so, you have spent too much time in your cozy world of the United States, where the rule of law holds sway. In these countries, it is still the law of the jungle. You cannot bring law to these please or these people without taming the jungle.

In my humble opinion we screwed up when we didn’t utilize a low yield tactical nuke in those mountains.  You f*ck with the bull, you get the horns.

I will also remind all the Bush haters the war with Iraq cause another nation to surrender their chemical and biological weapons.  The tip of the spear is sharp, they didn’t want to feel it.

[quote=mlgone]all 4 torture



Most experts say it doesn’t work…information is tainted to say the least. Anybody will say anything to stop the pain.



with that said I am all for doing anything that protects this nation. Wiretaps, torture etc[/quote]

General Petraeus, CENTCOM Commander, is against torture because he feels it doesn’t bring reliable information.  Sen John McCain is against torture because he went through it.  When everybody on this forum has more experience than General Petraeus, then I’ll listen. The Army Counterinsurgency manual that Gen Petraeus wrote talks about torture in depth. 

[quote=army13A]

[quote=mlgone]all 4 torture



Most experts say it doesn’t work…information is tainted to say the least. Anybody will say anything to stop the pain.



with that said I am all for doing anything that protects this nation. Wiretaps, torture etc[/quote]

General Petraeus, CENTCOM Commander, is against torture because he feels it doesn’t bring reliable information.  Sen John McCain is against torture because he went through it.  When everybody on this forum has more experience than General Petraeus, then I’ll listen. The Army Counterinsurgency manual that Gen Petraeus wrote talks about torture in depth. 
[/quote]

Does the CIA have more experience securing information than David Patraeus? 

[quote=voltmoie]

[quote=army13A]

[quote=mlgone]all 4 torture



Most experts say it doesn’t work…information is tainted to say the least. Anybody will say anything to stop the pain.



with that said I am all for doing anything that protects this nation. Wiretaps, torture etc[/quote]

General Petraeus, CENTCOM Commander, is against torture because he feels it doesn’t bring reliable information.  Sen John McCain is against torture because he went through it.  When everybody on this forum has more experience than General Petraeus, then I’ll listen. The Army Counterinsurgency manual that Gen Petraeus wrote talks about torture in depth. 
[/quote]

Does the CIA have more experience securing information than David Patraeus? 
[/quote]

Securing information from the old Cold War days is completely different than the world we are in today.  Tactics from the past do not apply to today’s modern day threat.  Add that to the fact that former senior members of the CIA say it doesn’t work as well . . .

Interrogation techniques have not changed much in the last 300 years. People won’t give you information unless some type of pressure is applied.

Appointed CIA officials say torture does not work, no most field agents.



With respect to the word “torture” I’m speaking of the enhanced interrogation techniques deployed by the Bush administration at the request of the CIA. Not quit splinters under finger nails or the rack.I’ll let the experts tell me what’s best and that is not a West Point grad with a tank battalion surrounding his base. Its the CIA guy in a sh*th!ole village that interrogates people for a living. This isn’t the movies, being nice does not work.

[quote=voltmoie]Interrogation techniques have not changed much in the last 300 years. People won’t give you information unless some type of pressure is applied.

Appointed CIA officials say torture does not work, no most field agents.



With respect to the word “torture” I’m speaking of the enhanced interrogation techniques deployed by the Bush administration at the request of the CIA. Not quit splinters under finger nails or the rack.I’ll let the experts tell me what’s best and that is not a West Point grad with a tank battalion surrounding his base. Its the CIA guy in a sh*th!ole village that interrogates people for a living. This isn’t the movies, being nice does not work.[/quote]

This is completely not true. 

First things first.  Do you really think Gen. Petraeus would put in the manual that it’s a good thing to torture?  Of course he cares about his career.  That would be ridiculous.

John McCain knows torture works, witnessed in his book of the people who broke under torture.  He was tortured, of course he doesn’t want it to happen.

The CIA techniques are not from the cold war.  I think it’s an error to assume they use the exact same methods for gathering information.

And finally - General Petraeus is a brilliant strategist and logistician.  He has a good theoretical knowledge of combat and how to fight.  He is, however, an unblooded warrior.  With the exception of getting shot on a training exercise, he has no idea what it is like to engage the enemy in combat.  Very few officers these days do, and most of them junior officers like you Army.  The only problem is the same structure that allows for discipline within the ranks also prevents senior officers from listening to their juniors.  The only ones that do, were prior enlisted soldiers.  If that manual were written with the aid of junior and senior NCOs, it would have likely included some brutal measures. 

So, point in fact, I have more combat experience that Gen. Petraeus.  If you have ever read “Once an Eagle” (which I think all officers are required to read it), Gen. Petraeus is Gen. Courtney Massengill.  I have more experience with insurgents than he does.  The first time he “saw combat” was as a Major General.  Not exactly in the thick of the fight.

As for torture not working.  Put a bullet through a guy’s hand, jam your finger in it, and see if he doesn’t tell you where the meeting between the sheikh and the insurgents will be where the sheikh is providing weapons.

One more thing - torture is horrible.  It is disgusting.  There is nothing honorable about war, only the warrior who does what he can for the guy next to him.  If war were as glorious as some think, I’d still be in.  War is hell.  There are those who can separate the intellectual from the physical.  I am not one of them.  War is brutal and to romanticize it as anything other than what it is is a fool’s game.

[quote=voltmoie]Interrogation techniques have not changed much in the last 300 years. People won’t give you information unless some type of pressure is applied.
Appointed CIA officials say torture does not work, no most field agents.

With respect to the word “torture” I’m speaking of the enhanced interrogation techniques deployed by the Bush administration at the request of the CIA. Not quit splinters under finger nails or the rack.I’ll let the experts tell me what’s best and that is not a West Point grad with a tank battalion surrounding his base. Its the CIA guy in a sh*th!ole village that interrogates people for a living. This isn’t the movies, being nice does not work.[/quote]

This is completely not true. 

Pharmaceuticals, baby!

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873

Here you go BG, from your favorite source, ABC.  The original info came from the AP.

What’s your guess?  I’m gonna go with he was trying to get a hold of al Qaeda so that he could talk them out of being terrorists. 

Anyone who goes postal is mentally ill. Nothing more, regardless of what people want to make it into. The guy could have contacted Bin laden, so what! He was pissed off and acting in an unbalanced way. That nobody stopped him is the story. But not because they suspected terrorism. Because he was in such a controlled environment, an army unit getting ready to deploy, someone should have taken note that this guy was coming unglued. After the shooting people who noticed are coming out of the woodwork.

BG - you never read my first post then. Never convicted him, although the evidence is mounting.



I see this guy could have a picture of him and bin Laden poring over maps of the Ft. Hood SRC and you would still think he is “just some crazy”.



I even tried to use “your” news source.



Get real. Sometimes a cat really is a cat.

Btw - that kind of prejudice gets you killed in combat. I am suspicious, not prejudiced. Just like I’m suspicious of guys who dress like thugs, priests who hang around playgrounds and men who stare at my wife.

Funny, this morning on the Today Show..they had the female Soldier who apparently saved someone's life during the shooting...Merideth says "at what point did you know that this wasn't a drill...was it when you heard him scream Allah Akbar?"....The Soldier basically said, I heard someone scream, but I never said it as Allah Akbar....this is an example of how the media skews things.  This girl never said anything of the sort, and now that Merideth said it on Today, everyone is going to spread the word that it is an act of terror.  Now...that being said, I think it is pretty evident that this guys agenda was terroristic, however, that doesn't mean he was sitting somewhere with Bin Laden smoking opium, talking about how he was going to shoot up Fort Hood!  I think he is a rogue terrorist at best...he could just be bonkers!?!?...at this point does it really matter???

My ol man said, "He was part of a sleeper cell that decided to take some guys out before being forced to go overseas and fight his brothers." But he also believes the government will slap bar codes on our asses before 2015.

The truth will come out in time and I am sure if it shows him to be mentally unstable and not some rouge terrorist, the news stations will drop the story like it has a disease.

[quote=DeBolt]…The truth will come out in time and I am sure if it shows him to be mentally unstable and not some rouge terrorist, the news stations will drop the story like it has a disease.[/quote]

I agree…Al Qadea has a very clear m.o…and this clearly isn’t it.

Anyone who even hints that this is the work of Al Qadea is a jackass.


FYI:
Al Qadea =
1. Large explosions for a high body count
2. Simultaneous attacks
3. Identifiable targets
4. Claim responsibly immediately

Still, you're a silly bastard. 

Do you think if this guy went to bin Laden and said, “I’m gonna shoot up soldier’s ready to deploy”, bin Laden is going to say, “Wait, it doesn’t meet our four criteria”?

A fairly balanced report from the NYTimes, discussing his ties to a radical Yemenese cleric.  Looks like he contacted him for some research, which may or may not be legit. 

The Yemenese cleric is American born.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10inquire.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

[quote=Still@jones]

[quote=DeBolt]…The truth will come out in time and I am sure if it shows him to be mentally unstable and not some rouge terrorist, the news stations will drop the story like it has a disease.[/quote]

I agree…Al Qadea has a very clear m.o…and this clearly isn’t it.

Anyone who even hints that this is the work of Al Qadea is a jackass.


FYI:
Al Qadea =
1. Large explosions for a high body count
2. Simultaneous attacks
3. Identifiable targets
4. Claim responsibly immediately
[/quote]

What was the simultaneous attack in 1993 or 2000?

What is more identifiable than the largest military base in the U.S.?

FBI - No terrorist connection

Link?

This was posted fifteen minutes ago.  Doesn’t really mention anything about there not being a terrorist connection. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_fort_hood_shooting

The only thing I know for sure is that I hope he survives so he can be treated to life in Don't-drop-the-soap Penitentiary.

The fundamental point some of you are missing is although he might not have been affiliated with a terrorist organization he followed their model in enacting his terror.  He read their propaganda, posted on their websites, and in the end tried to become a martyr.  He does not have to have an official connection to act as their agent.  He became a pawn in their chess match....  however, bury your heads in the sand.  Thank your lucky stars he was not part of a terror organization.  I will not.  I submit to you that men acting independently of an origination pose far greater risk than a terror network itself.  Especially if those men are American citizens perverted by Islam.

However, now I will sleep better at night knowing the FBI has said he was not a terrorist.  Wake up, we are at war.

I agree with volt on most things.

Except that I think that these men are perverting Islam, not the other way around. 

Misinterpretation of scriptures from all religions have resulted in countless wars and atrocities. 

Islam is not the problem.  It is the excuse these horrible people use to preach and enact their hate of something different than them.

Terrorist are perverting Islam, not the other way around.

I agree with volt on most things.

Except that I think that these men are perverting Islam, not the other way around. 

Misinterpretation of scriptures from all religions have resulted in countless wars and atrocities. 

Islam is not the problem.  It is the excuse these horrible people use to preach and enact their hate of something different than them.

Right On.  Fundamentalist is the problem. It does not matter what religion they are fundamentalist are the problem

<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

[quote=Moraen]I agree with volt on most things.

Except that I think that these men are perverting Islam, not the other way around. 

Misinterpretation of scriptures from all religions have resulted in countless wars and atrocities. 

Islam is not the problem.  It is the excuse these horrible people use to preach and enact their hate of something different than them.

Right On.  Fundamentalist is the problem. It does not matter what religion they are fundamentalist are the problem

<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

What 3rd says is correct.  Which is why, no matter how much it infringes on civil liberties and looks like a witch hunt, you look more closely at Muslims and people with skin like me.  Please tap my phone.  Please pull me out of line at the airport.  You are randomly searching Grandma, but not me?  Seriously?

Until Islam begins to self-police itself they are the problem in my eyes. 

Moraen, I return to your opening comment and perception about apologist America. Bush was probably the last free market leader. We stood as a nation, and now we run to the corners, each man grabbing what cattle, guns, hired hands, fencing and supplies he can on his way to his ranch.

[quote=BondGuy]

Terrorist are perverting Islam, not the other way around.

What 3rd says is correct.  Which is why, no matter how much it infringes on civil liberties and looks like a witch hunt, you look more closely at Muslims and people with skin like me.  Please tap my phone.  Please pull me out of line at the airport.  You are randomly searching Grandma, but not me?  Seriously?

[quote=Milyunair]Moraen, I return to your opening comment and perception about apologist America. Bush was probably the last free market leader. We stood as a nation, and now we run to the corners, each man grabbing what cattle, guns, hired hands, fencing and supplies he can on his way to his ranch.

We have only those rights we can defend with our bare hands and any weapons we can get our hands on BondGuy.

I don’t need a Bill of Rights to tell me what my rights are.  However, I live in a country with others.  The fact that I choose to do so, means that I must limit what my rights are, as do you. 

Brainwashed?  Hardly.  I have nothing to hide, why shouldn’t I let them tap my phone, or pull me out of line?

“guaranteed by the constitution and the bill or rights”?  Are you kidding me?  Do you need some dead guys to tell you what your rights are?  If they came back today and said, “we’re gonna take a couple of these rights away” would you say ok?  Or if they added more, would you all of the sudden say, “no I’m good”. 

At what point do we say enough is enough.  How many people have to die BondGuy.  Was 3000 not enough for you.  Perhaps 100,000.  A million?

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  I believe you are naive because you have been sheltered in this wonderful country of ours and coddled to believe that there aren’t people that do some right nasty things to insure your safety and your right to believe that no one should touch your “rights”. 

That’s the problem with you bleeding hearts.  You only understand freedom, and not the cost.  Everything has a price.  The death of my family is not something I’m willing to accept.

Do what you will BG.

I think perhaps you’ve been brainwashed.  You think that people are basically good.  Thousands of years of history and atrocities prove that it isn’t. 

This is yet another reason I got out of the military.  Ungrateful.  Oh yes, you may mouth the platitudes of “I support the troops.  I appreciate the sacrifice of the troops”.  No.  You.  Don’t. 

You know the interesting part about you quoting my post is that you don’t even question the intelligence of pulling out middle eastern looking males age 20 to 40.  You just bash my position as a brainwashed Reaganite.  Which I’m not.

It just makes sense.

People are basically good. I believe that. If you think that makes me weak, so be it!

I’m 27.  I have the “right” to go into a bar on a Saturday night and have a few drinks.  Do I still get looked up and down and have bouncers ask me questions about info on my license to make sure I’m 21 and allowed in the bar?  Yes.  Do I care?  No, as long as the end result is I end up in the bar.  Do 39 year old cougars get pulled aside and looked up and down by bouncers questioning whether they are of legal age to get into the bar?  No.  Is that discriminatory against me?  No, its just the establishment doing what they have to do to make sure that everyone going inside is 21.  Who does the bar see as more likely to be underaged and using a fake ID, someone who’s 27 or someone who’s 39?  My guess is that they look at me and think I have more potential to be underaged.  How is this different from profiling at an airport security checkpoint?  Or at the customs?  A 56 year old white grandma is 100% less likely to be strapping on bombs than a 30 year old Muslim, so why does the white grandma have the same odds of getting pulled aside in the airport than the Muslim?  Its not stereotyping if the facts back up the actions.

I live in the real world.  I am happy for you that there are others who will do the things you despise so that you can live in your fantasy world.  I couldn’t stomach the betrayal.  Perhaps that makes ME weak.  But I have given enough.  My family has given enough.  Between my mother, brother, father and I - 60 years of service and one dead.  Forget grandparents.  Two generations, and for what?  So people can pretend the world is cozy and sweet.

I have given enough.  And I will keep my family safe.  Without the government’s help.

When we are at war certain steps must be taken to win said war. Go back to the civil war and see what old Abe had to do. After that tell me if what Bush did was so bad.



You see, history teaches us everything we need to know about our current conflict. If only some wouldn’t seek to rewrite it the threat could be eliminated more quickly. The problem with Bush with respect to the war on terror was he was just too damn effective. If we had a few attacks on the homeland guys like Bondguy would be begging for racial profiling and wiretaps.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh how the liberals would cry foul if Abe were President today.

[quote=BondGuy]

People are basically good. I believe that. If you think that makes me weak, so be it!

ThoughtCo Abraham Lincoln's 1861 Proclamation Suspended Right of Habeas Corpus

Along with a declaring martial law, PresidentLincoln ordered the suspension of the constitutionally protected right to writs of habeas corpus.

Ben Franklin was weak.  He was a French-kissing weakling.  In fact, he was a loyalist for most of the time.  Self-interest and snubbing by Parliament is what made him a rebel.

I’ve read three Franklin biographies. 

As clearly stated in the link volt so generously provided, the CONSTITUTION allows for suspension of habeus corpus.

[quote=JackBlack]

[quote=JackBlack]

I don't post on here very often, mostly just read looking for helpful hints and the amusing threads from time to time.  But Moraen, I wanted to say really quick thank you for the service that you and your family have given to this country.

We have only those rights we can defend with our bare hands and any weapons we can get our hands on BondGuy.

I don’t need a Bill of Rights to tell me what my rights are.  However, I live in a country with others.  The fact that I choose to do so, means that I must limit what my rights are, as do you.

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. - Thomas Jefferson

Moraen:<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

First, I do not care what type of person Benjamin Franklin. If you have, problems with the idea attack the idea, not the man who said it. Your attack was ad hominem.

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Military Commissions Act of 2006

“No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

Bush suspension of Habeas Corpus only applies to aliens detained by the <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />United States. The Writ of Habeas Corpus for US citizens is still in place.

Here’s a ‘what if’ that plays out in my mind during some darker ponderings.

My biggest fear is the elementary school my daughter goes to every day.

The quote had everything to do with the man.  Hard to take someone seriously who would have given up his freedom in an instant for the respect of Parliament.

My rights are not violated when Habeeb’s phone is wiretapped.  They are violated when some liberal bytch passes a 1900 page health care plan.

Moraen:

[quote=JackBlack]Moraen:

[quote=JackBlack]

Moraen:<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

First, I do not care what type of person Benjamin Franklin. If you have, problems with the idea attack the idea, not the man who said it. Your attack was ad hominem.[/quote]

Voltmoie:

<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

I believe when anyone rights are violated my rights are violated.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller (14 January 1892 – 6 March 1984)

[quote=JackBlack]Moraen:

Utilizing the quotes of others to prove your point is a weak minds crutch - Volt 2009

[quote=voltmoie] [quote=JackBlack]Moraen:

<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Not so. The truth or falsehood of a statement holds no matter who says it. It does not matter who say the words, the statement is true or false on its own merits.

I prefer to use my own words to argue my points. 

Pointing to past deeds is noble.  Pointing to others words is hollow.  - Volt 2009

Volt:

I do not plagiarize. If I take someone else idea, I credit them. Plagiarize is more then take a direct quote it also includes taking ideas.

<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Who said you plagiarized?  I said you can’t make the point yourself so you utilize a convenient quote.  It’s a crutch and weak tactic to deploy in a debate.  Point to historical events and actions … not quotes which you have no appropriate context to understand their true meaning.

Minus google what are you?

Fools point to words
Men point to deeds

-Volt 2009

[quote=voltmoie]Who said you plagiarized?  I said you can’t make the point yourself so you utilize a convenient quote.  It’s a crutch and weak tactic to deploy in a debate.  Point to historical events and actions … not quotes which you have no appropriate context to understand their true meaning.

Minus google what are you?

[/quote] My guess he would be a FOOGLE

Who said you plagiarized?  I said you can’t make the point yourself so you utilize a convenient quote.  It’s a crutch and weak tactic to deploy in a debate.  Point to historical events and actions … not quotes which you have no appropriate context to understand their true meaning.

Minus google what are you?

Why is it a weak tactic?

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. - Thomas Jefferson

[quote=BondGuy][quote=Milyunair]Moraen, I return to your opening comment and perception about apologist America. Bush was probably the last free market leader. We stood as a nation, and now we run to the corners, each man grabbing what cattle, guns, hired hands, fencing and supplies he can on his way to his ranch.

My rights are not violated when Habeeb’s phone is wiretapped.  They are violated when some liberal bytch passes a 1900 page health care plan.

[quote=voltmoie]Who said you plagiarized?  I said you can’t make the point yourself so you utilize a convenient quote.  It’s a crutch and weak tactic to deploy in a debate.  Point to historical events and actions … not quotes which you have no appropriate context to understand their true meaning.

Minus google what are you?

Why is it a weak tactic?

[quote=voltmoie]Who said you plagiarized?  I said you can’t make the point yourself so you utilize a convenient quote.  It’s a crutch and weak tactic to deploy in a debate.  Point to historical events and actions … not quotes which you have no appropriate context to understand their true meaning.

Minus google what are you?

Why is it a weak tactic?

[quote=voltmoie]Still, you’re a silly bastard. [/quote]

I am being serious…water-boarding is simply the “torture” they are using to test legal an public opinion. The real torture is pharmaceuticals.

Imagine this, they give you a needle and all the sudden you feel like your body is on fire; it is excruciatingly painful, but you don’t die. They give you another shot and you can actually see worms eating your skin; just like LSD but 1000x more real. They give you a third shot and it goes away (in 20 minutes). Then they ask you, what do you know?

If they do this enough times, you will go insane. You’d rip off your own skin if you weren’t strapped to the table.

Now imagine this, instead of being a Muslim, you are a right-leaning ambassador. You are researching some false statements by the Democratic House, Senate & Presidency when all of the sudden (thanks to an article written by Joe Wilson), you are labeled a spy. The CIA needs to know what you know so they use “enhanced interrogation techniques” that were approved by Volt and the Bush administration. Even though you haven’t even had a trial, you can now be subjected to torture that is worse than death…are you sure you are ok with this?

[quote=JackBlack][quote=voltmoie]Who said you plagiarized?  I said you can’t make the point yourself so you utilize a convenient quote.  It’s a crutch and weak tactic to deploy in a debate.  Point to historical events and actions … not quotes which you have no appropriate context to understand their true meaning.

Minus google what are you?

Why is it a weak tactic?

[quote=JackBlack][quote=voltmoie]Who said you plagiarized?  I said you can’t make the point yourself so you utilize a convenient quote.  It’s a crutch and weak tactic to deploy in a debate.  Point to historical events and actions … not quotes which you have no appropriate context to understand their true meaning.

Minus google what are you?

Why is it a weak tactic?

[quote=3rdyrp2][quote=JackBlack][quote=voltmoie]Who said you plagiarized?  I said you can’t make the point yourself so you utilize a convenient quote.  It’s a crutch and weak tactic to deploy in a debate.  Point to historical events and actions … not quotes which you have no appropriate context to understand their true meaning.

Minus google what are you?

Why is it a weak tactic?

3rdyrp2:

It does not matter it the person believe what they say. What matter is what is said. My opinion about GWB has no bearing on the quote you provided. It is true or false on its on merits. It Hitler said that unicorns do not exist would they suddenly start to exist?

<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

[quote=voltmoie] [quote=JackBlack][quote=voltmoie]Who said you plagiarized?  I said you can’t make the point yourself so you utilize a convenient quote.  It’s a crutch and weak tactic to deploy in a debate.  Point to historical events and actions … not quotes which you have no appropriate context to understand their true meaning.

Minus google what are you?

Why is it a weak tactic?

[quote=JackBlack][quote=voltmoie] [quote=JackBlack][quote=voltmoie]Who said you plagiarized?  I said you can’t make the point yourself so you utilize a convenient quote.  It’s a crutch and weak tactic to deploy in a debate.  Point to historical events and actions … not quotes which you have no appropriate context to understand their true meaning.

Minus google what are you?

Why is it a weak tactic?

Jack … you can’t debate becuase your mind is weak.  Instead you post quotes and ask questions in a pathetic attempt to out fox the fox.  Keep posting your drivel and I’ll keep owning you.  Frame a point and defend it using historical evidence … this is how you debate an issue. Lots of smart people on this thread doing just that - on both sides. Just not you.

Volt:

I believe in the <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Geneva conventions. From you statement on this tread my guess is you do not. You want to nuke millions of innocent people in Afghanistan, to get the Taliban I do not think that is a good policy. You claim there are no rule in war, I point to the Geneva Conventions. I believe that we are better then the Taliban. You want to use any means necessary, which in my opinion would make us no better then the Taliban. I believe that you have to be careful that the ends justify the means. If you are willing to win at any cost, you might lose what is most precious to you.

<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

[quote=JackBlack]

There are children who's parents were killed and husbands/wives who's spouses were killed in Ft. Hood.  It could have been prevented.  Ask them what essential liberties they would have given up to "purchase a little temporary safety", and what they would give to wake up and have the deceased still in the house cooking breakfast in the morning or give them a hug after a long day of work.  No essential liberties need to be sacrificed to eliminate one documented nutjob from the Army.  Except political correctness and fear of retribution from religious sects. 

[quote=JackBlack]Volt:

I believe in the <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Geneva conventions. From you statement on this tread my guess is you do not. You want to nuke millions of innocent people in Afghanistan, to get the Taliban I do not think that is a good policy. You claim there are no rule in war, I point to the Geneva Conventions. I believe that we are better then the Taliban. You want to use any means necessary, which in my opinion would make us no better then the Taliban. I believe that you have to be careful that the ends justify the means. If you are willing to win at any cost, you might lose what is most precious to you.

<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

The Geneva Conventions also state that you can’t kill livestock, to include dogs.

So here is a situation.  You and your squad are sneaking up on KNOWN arms dealer who is supplying weapons to terrorists.

The compound has several dogs surrounding it.  There are sniper teams in place to provide cover and prevent you from being noticed.

However, because you can’t kill the dogs, they will sound the alarm as soon as they smell you.  You COULD take them out with the snipers and thus your team would be able to enter the compound and remove any advantage the weapons dealer had.

What do you do Jack?  We don’t want to become like the Taliban do we?

The reason I bring this up, is because this actually happened to me.  Tell me what I should have done.

Art. 54. Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population

1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.

2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

Ok, since JB and BG didn’t want to respond to my question.  I’ll give some options.

A)  We scrap the mission, and continue letting insurgents place bombs to kill our men.  Also, continuing the sale of weapons from the sheikh.  We then go to the sheikh during the day and ask him nicely to stop selling arms.  We tell him that we love all arms dealers and we embrace him with open arms. 

B)  We go in, even with the dogs barking, and while being attacked by the dogs, some of us get shot and killed.  We appear not only incompetent, but also easy to attack.  Our scruples for following GC will keep us getting killed

C)  The snipers shoot the dogs.  We capture the sheikh, find out where he is getting his weapons (with a little encouragement) and disrupt the entire operation, the resulting information leading to the capture of hundreds of weapons and the death or capture of over 70 insurgents.

C seems like it would have done the most good.  But we obviously could not do it since it violated the Geneva Conventions.

[quote=JackBlack]
Art. 54. Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population

1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.

2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

We are America! I don’t give a rat’s ass if it helps. We are America; we do not f***ing torture!
…oops!"

S.Smith.

Morean:

Jack … Shhhhhhh! 

Voltoie:

[quote=JackBlack] Morean:

So. I broke the Geneva Conventions. In the process likely prevented several bombings and ambushes. I am evil. Everything that is wrong with this country.



I’m glad you believe in the GC. It cost me a little but if money and prevented me from continuing with the mission. What a great thing to talk about on VETERANS day.

Here’s the last thing I will say on “enhanced terrogations” and not stooping to the level of the Taliban and AQ.  Halfway through our deployment in Baghdad, we got moved to another section of Baghdad b/c this one unit had to redeploy stateside early.  During the handover process, I was actually the Commander as my Commander was on leave (go figure, he went before me too! Soldiers first, lol).  As we conducted the handover process and they talked to us about the territory, we saw how the unit we were replacing behaved with the local population.  We were in a busy section of Baghdad and there would be cars jam packed in traffic.  These guys would walk through the cars and break glasses, headlights, point weapons directly at people for no reason, etc.  The whole time they were doing it they were laughing and going about their business.  The reason they were leaving a little early? In the short time they were there, they had too many KIA’s and were on the verge of being combat ineffective.  About five days prior to that, they lost 5 guys in an IED explosion. 

As we took over the area, the people knew the units changed out.  They saw the different unit patches and they watched the way we conducted business.  We were stern when we needed to be but we weren’t d*cks for no reason.  Trust me, when it came time to shake some guys down, we did it no problem.  We just didn’t smash windows for no reason and laugh while we did it.  Guess what? One early morning while we were getting ready to conduct our IED sweeps, we had some of the local people flag us down right infront of our FOB (Forward Operating Base)from far and tell us “bomb bomb bomb”.  Our interpreter asked them exactly what happened and they said they saw someone right before dawn plant an IED and they knew we would be out soon so they wanted to make sure we knew about it.  The rest of the time we were there, we had the local town give us that kind of information all the time.  Gee, the unit before us didn’t get that kind of help from the people because they were a bunch of jerks.  We had a Civil Affairs Officer that was attached to us and he worked with the unit before us and he even said the way we conducted ourselves was completely more professional and not “douche baggish” like the units before us and because of that, we’re getting their help. 

So what’s my point? When the unit before us just broke crap and acted like a bunch of tough guys, they got no help from the local people and had almost 5 times the amount of KIA’s in a shorter time span than my whole unit’s entire time in Iraq.  We didn’t have any KIA’s when we occupied that zone.  There were Iraqi’s who didn’t really care we were there either way: they weren’t happy and they weren’t mad, they were indifferent.  Once we kill someone they know (without cause I will add, not someone who needed to be killed) or destroyed their property without cause, we just made another enemy. 

I haven’t checked the numbers in a while but while I was there, AQ represented maybe 5% of the people who were fighting us.  The rest were the Baath party guys who were pissed off that they didn’t have jobs anymore and had nothing else to do.  During the initial invasion, we gave notices to the entire Iraqi Army to not fight us and if they put their arms down, it would benefit them and they would have a place in the new government.  When the genius Paul Bremer signed that piece of paper to purge the entire Iraqi Army and go back on our promise, that’s when they got pissed and was a huge portion of the resistance we faced in Iraq. 

army - why is the sky blue buddy?



Because GOD loves the infantry!





Our CO was a d*** at first too, until he came about 3 feet from getting his ass blown up.



As far as AQ is concerned, different places for different people. When I was there, Hezbollah and al Qaeda were pouring in. My first six months were spent on the Iranian border, literally 5 or 6 miles from the border, if that.



Two months in Fallujah watching the Marines screw up what the 82nd had going there and then fighting Sadr’s army in Samara for the next five months (yes thirteen months).



I agree that you had to work with the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE are different than the insurgents or terrorists. But I would never show my back to even one of the people.



Most of them liked us. Especially me. I spent my time at the FOB writing CERPS for building wells, schools and removing UXO. BEFORE Petraeus came along.



Difference between terrorist and the PEOPLE.

[quote=Moraen]army - why is the sky blue buddy?



Because GOD loves the infantry!





Our CO was a d*** at first too, until he came about 3 feet from getting his ass blown up.



As far as AQ is concerned, different places for different people. When I was there, Hezbollah and al Qaeda were pouring in. My first six months were spent on the Iranian border, literally 5 or 6 miles from the border, if that.



Two months in Fallujah watching the Marines screw up what the 82nd had going there and then fighting Sadr’s army in Samara for the next five months (yes thirteen months).



I agree that you had to work with the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE are different than the insurgents or terrorists. But I would never show my back to even one of the people.



Most of them liked us. Especially me. I spent my time at the FOB writing CERPS for building wells, schools and removing UXO. BEFORE Petraeus came along.



Difference between terrorist and the PEOPLE.[/quote]

Lol, good one.

Of course there was a difference from the guys who shot at us and the local populace.  What I was talking about when some on here talk about “kill their women and children because war has no rules” that it’s self defeating.  Trust me, I never turned my back on any of the people, including our interpreters.  Before we went on every patrol, they would get searched , even the guys who were with us the entire time. 

“If, -after the battle is over, your infantry
don’t like you, you are a poor artilleryman.”
“If, -after the battle is over, your infantry
don’t like you, you are a poor artilleryman.”