London/The World

[Tigermike 3,040]

Vatz, I see where you're coming from and I think a distinction needs to be made here about what is meant by hunting terrorist down and killing them.  I certainly would never advocate shooting an unarmed individual, prisoner etc.  However; as long as terrorist groups exist and are actively taking the lives of innocent victims to make their point, they deserve no mercy.

Should a terrorist raise the white flag and lay down his weapon, I will be the first to defend his right to be taken in, treated in a humane manner(Despite what he may have done) and tried for his transgressions.  But short of complete surrender, I say shoot first and ask questions later.

167733[/snapback]

Thank you Esquire, well said. That is what I was saying, I am just not as articulate as you.

[vatz22au 142]

I think the distinction that needs to be made here is that Americans are not blood thirsty animals like these savages (terrorists) that yell," KILL THEM ALL KILL THEM ALL."

That is the tone I am seeing on this thread.

[Tigermike 3,040]

I think the distinction that needs to be made here is that Americans are not blood thirsty animals like these savages (terrorists)  that yell," KILL THEM ALL KILL THEM ALL."

That is the tone I am seeing on this thread.

167737[/snapback]

Kill all the terrorists - yes.

Kill all the leaders of terrorists - yes.

Kill all the Muslims - absolutely not.

Killing those blood thirsty terrorists would in no way make or indicate that Americans are blood thirsty animals.

[vatz22au 142]

I think the distinction that needs to be made here is that Americans are not blood thirsty animals like these savages (terrorists)  that yell," KILL THEM ALL KILL THEM ALL."

That is the tone I am seeing on this thread.

167737[/snapback]

Kill all the terrorists - yes.

Kill all the leaders of terrorists - yes.

Kill all the Muslims - absolutely not.

Killing those blood thirsty terrorists would in no way make or indicate that Americans are blood thirsty animals.

167742[/snapback]

Not indicating that. Indicating the tone of certain posts on this thread actually.

[WarTim 3,456]

Maybe I am not making my point clear, as some have said this has turned into a "blood thirsty" thread. WAR IS HELL. It is KILL OR BE KILLED. Should we "kill" innocent muslims? No. (But, keep in mind that their "religion" directs them to KILL US!) We must "verbally" fight against the "feel good" crowd, liberal or conservative, that are more concerned with the treatment of POWs than getting RID of the ENEMY.

If we were discussing WWII , I would definately be in favor of killing EVERY nazi.

(At least until we had their ABSOLUTE surrender.) WAR is about WINNING. It is about KILLING the ENEMY and destroying their "stuff". Sorry if that definition offends, but, that is the way it IS. There is no room in WAR for political correctness.I would rather we not be forced into the situation we are currently facing, but, here we are. The future depends on what we do NOW. We must destroy the enemy BEFORE they destroy us. They have made it very clear that they are willing to give their lives to KILL Americans. I say we do EVERYTHING possible to W I N before another innocent life is lost.

God Bless America!

God Save the Queen!

[vatz22au 142]

Not sure where most of y'all are going with this. Simply stating the context of certain posts on this thread were bloodthirsty and stooping to the same level as them. Any other specific point made is just out of context to the point I am originally trying to make. I feel like some of you are twisting and molding and creating new points around the original one I am making.

Simply put, dont stoop to their savage level.

[WarTim 3,456]

Vatz, I am not attempting to make an arguement. The fact is that WAR is brutal-savage-KILLING. In the politically correct world we live in today, I am afraid some folks have forgotten what WAR IS. It is not savage to KILL the enemy. THAT is the GOAL of WAR. I want to be on the WINNING side. I want OUR young men and women to come home ALIVE. If that means killing the enemy, an enemy that will not surrender, that leaves very few options. In a perfect world, killing of any kind would not be needed. We must fight to WIN.

[vatz22au 142]

Vatz, I am not attempting to make an arguement. The fact is that WAR is brutal-savage-KILLING. In the politically correct world we live in today, I am afraid some folks have forgotten what WAR IS. It is not savage to KILL the enemy. THAT is the GOAL of WAR. I want to be on the WINNING side. I want OUR young men and women to come home ALIVE. If that means killing the enemy, an enemy that will not surrender, that leaves very few options. In a perfect world, killing of any kind would not be needed. We must fight to WIN.

167758[/snapback]

" My policy would to be "Take NO prisoners". "

If the goal of war is to kill, then thats absurd. The goal of war is peace. Frankly, people forgot that along time ago.

I really understand your point of view...I truly do. Im just stating earlier, you came across much more of a view of,"no matter if the white flag was up or down, they all deserve to die...no matter what part they took in anything." I dont agree with that, and never will.

We are not nazis....we do not condemn our prisoners the way our enemies treat ours. I respect America's ability, no matter the situation, to maintain its honor and prestige in doing just that.

[rexbo 104]

My post the other day, agreeing with Chirac criticizing the British food still stands, the food is not so good; but that was said with a wink. I have been there many times on business, coming through London just last weekend. I love London and the UK, the people are all fantastic. I believe they will take this fight to the end with us, until every last one of the b*****ds is removed from the face of the earth.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

My prayers go out as well to our brothers across the pond. 

TIS, how do "Money grubbing trial lawyers" play into the war on terrorism?  Just curious why the need for a shot at my profession in a discussion about a terrorist act in London.

167694[/snapback]

It was a poor choice of words, but I think his main point was that we will not win the war on terror by arresting the perps and putting them on trial. He would advocate a more direct solution such as tracking them and their leaders up the food chain and hunting them like dogs. Kill them, don't prosecute them. And preferably, do it over in their home countries. Don't know that that's always possible, but I think that was the gist of what he was saying.

167697[/snapback]

Okay, but Federal prosecutors are "money grubbers"? TIS gave just another Right Wing programmed response regardless of its applicability.

We need to disrupt their planning and implementation. This requires rooting out the cells wherever they are which mostly requires investigative work.

167698[/snapback]

Thank you for the assist, Titan. We can prosecute this war militarily and judicially, but we can't rely on the courts to bring these militants under control by itself. We, as a free civilization, have to understand that sometimes we have to get a little dirt under our fingernails to get the job done. What we have to do is come to the realization that blood has to be shed to win, and if a certain group of thinkers can't stomach it, then they need to turn their heads and handle the court issue while those of us that can handle the dirty work take care of our business. This attack yesterday proves once again that we are at war, not in litigation with these people. If we can capture some of the leaders alive by covert means, fine....capture them, interrogate them, and jail them. I'm all for that. But, if we have to slit throats, shoot them in the head, or dispose of them in other ways; then we have to have the willingness to accept this action as well.

TexasTiger, you can blow it out of your rear end for all I care. If you can't see the "applicability" of what I'm saying...I really don't give a crap. You want to investigate....go to London. There's the crime scene.

As far as I'm concerned, the time for hugging and attempting to understand what makes these savages tick is over. How many more bombs have to go off before everyone understands what is at stake? How many more civilians have to get blown to shreds before we understand these murderers don't play by the rules, and in order for us to defeat them, we have to be willing to get our hands dirty and beat them at their game? Sticking ones head deeper into the sand obviously won't work, Vatz. Like the Kenny Rogers song goes, "Sometimes you've got to fight when you're a man".

[WarTim 3,456]

My friend in Spain has said it all. Thank you Sir and God Bless!

[Tiger in Spain 0]

This should really make you think. This is from a muslim cleric that preaches in a mosque in London. This quote signifies the ideology we are up against.

“We don’t make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity.”

Please, read more: Link

[vatz22au 142]

Im not telling anyone how to do anything or fight a war. Just simply stating that earlier, the tone of this thread was barbaric.

Im not participating in any other point than just that.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

I'd wager that the tone of the bombs going off in London yesterday was barbaric to some as well. War is barbaric and the rabid dog example used earlier is right on the money. You don't get rid of a rabid dog by petting its head, and you won't get rid of these extremists by appeasing them or investigating them. You have to kill them. To defend oneself and guarantee survival, a person must be willing to be just as barbaric as his adversary. Piglet sums it up really well:

....at some point you're gonna have to choose whether you want to "prevent attacks", or whether you want to "refuse to stoop to the terrorists' level".  You can't demand both.

167727[/snapback]

The PC trend is to avoid using the "Crusade" word, but I can think of no better adjective for what we are in today than Holy War. This isn't a fight over the Middle East or anything earthly(oil, prisoner treatment, sand vs dirt), this is a fight over ideology and these terrorists are playing to win. It's what their religion teaches them. We have to pull together and either come up with the will to fight or get ready for one hell of a fireworks show.

[vatz22au 142]

I'd wager that the tone of the bombs going off in London yesterday was barbaric to some as well. War is barbaric and the rabid dog example used earlier is right on the money. You don't get rid of a rabid dog by petting its head, and you won't get rid of these extremists by appeasing them or investigating them. You have to kill them. To defend oneself and guarantee survival, a person must be willing to be just as barbaric as his adversary. Piglet sums it up really well:

....at some point you're gonna have to choose whether you want to "prevent attacks", or whether you want to "refuse to stoop to the terrorists' level".  You can't demand both.

167727[/snapback]

The PC trend is to avoid using the "Crusade" word, but I can think of no better adjective for what we are in today than Holy War. This isn't a fight over the Middle East or anything earthly(oil, prisoner treatment, sand vs dirt), this is a fight over ideology and these terrorists are playing to win. It's what their religion teaches them. We have to pull together and either come up with the will to fight or get ready for one hell of a fireworks show.

167867[/snapback]

Again...and again...simply stating earlier the tone was barbaric. Dont know why some of you keep insisting on turning, and twisting, and creating new points. Just let me simply state that we could talk better as people and that be the end of it

I feel like your arguing for the sake of arguing.

[WarTim 3,456]

Do you have a point other than calling a "Hawk" barbaric?

I think TIS stated his case very clearly and to the point.

[vatz22au 142]

Do you have a point other than calling a "Hawk" barbaric?

I think TIS stated his case very clearly and to the point.

167931[/snapback]

[Tigermike 3,040]

I'd wager that the tone of the bombs going off in London yesterday was barbaric to some as well. War is barbaric and the rabid dog example used earlier is right on the money. You don't get rid of a rabid dog by petting its head, and you won't get rid of these extremists by appeasing them or investigating them. You have to kill them. To defend oneself and guarantee survival, a person must be willing to be just as barbaric as his adversary. Piglet sums it up really well:

....at some point you're gonna have to choose whether you want to "prevent attacks", or whether you want to "refuse to stoop to the terrorists' level".  You can't demand both.

167727[/snapback]

The PC trend is to avoid using the "Crusade" word, but I can think of no better adjective for what we are in today than Holy War. This isn't a fight over the Middle East or anything earthly(oil, prisoner treatment, sand vs dirt), this is a fight over ideology and these terrorists are playing to win. It's what their religion teaches them. We have to pull together and either come up with the will to fight or get ready for one hell of a fireworks show.

167867[/snapback]

Again...and again...simply stating earlier the tone was barbaric. Dont know why some of you keep insisting on turning, and twisting, and creating new points. Just let me simply state that we could talk better as people and that be the end of it

I feel like your arguing for the sake of arguing.

167898[/snapback]

How can it be said politely that those murdering bas$#@d's need to die? Would it have made you feel better if we had used nicer language? How about if we had said, "Golly gee whiz Beaver, I think those terrorists should have a late in life abortion!"?

Do you really think sitting around a campfire and singing Kum-Ba-Ya, with those folks will help?

[vatz22au 142]

I'd wager that the tone of the bombs going off in London yesterday was barbaric to some as well. War is barbaric and the rabid dog example used earlier is right on the money. You don't get rid of a rabid dog by petting its head, and you won't get rid of these extremists by appeasing them or investigating them. You have to kill them. To defend oneself and guarantee survival, a person must be willing to be just as barbaric as his adversary. Piglet sums it up really well:

....at some point you're gonna have to choose whether you want to "prevent attacks", or whether you want to "refuse to stoop to the terrorists' level".  You can't demand both.

167727[/snapback]

The PC trend is to avoid using the "Crusade" word, but I can think of no better adjective for what we are in today than Holy War. This isn't a fight over the Middle East or anything earthly(oil, prisoner treatment, sand vs dirt), this is a fight over ideology and these terrorists are playing to win. It's what their religion teaches them. We have to pull together and either come up with the will to fight or get ready for one hell of a fireworks show.

167867[/snapback]

Again...and again...simply stating earlier the tone was barbaric. Dont know why some of you keep insisting on turning, and twisting, and creating new points. Just let me simply state that we could talk better as people and that be the end of it

I feel like your arguing for the sake of arguing.

167898[/snapback]

How can it be said politely that those murdering bas$#@d's need to die? Would it have made you feel better if we had used nicer language? How about if we had said, "Golly gee whiz Beaver, I think those terrorists should have a late in life abortion!"?

Do you really think sitting around a campfire and singing Kum-Ba-Ya, with those folks will help?

167938[/snapback]

That would've been great! Sarcasm is great aint it?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

You guys do realize that at this point, you're all just making the exact same points over and over again?

[Tiger Al 0]

You guys do realize that at this point, you're all just making the exact same points over and over again?

167948[/snapback]

It's not so much that as it is them making the same points repeatedly.

[vatz22au 142]

You guys do realize that at this point, you're all just making the exact same points over and over again?

167948[/snapback]

Sadly, I tried to point that out a long time ago

[TexasTiger 12,964]

TexasTiger, you can blow it out of your rear end for all I care. If you can't see the "applicability" of what I'm saying...I really don't give a crap. You want to investigate....go to London. There's the crime scene.

As far as I'm concerned, the time for hugging and attempting to understand what makes these savages tick is over.

You continually create your opponents' position so that you can attack it. Maybe that's because you lack the critical thinking skills to address their point, or maybe it's because you lack the critical thinking skills to understand their point. You certainly rarely reflect an understanding of anything I say that you attack. Your position: "We just need to kill the b@stards, damnit!" "No more d@mn huggin'!"

Okay. But I hope we can infiltrate them, root them out, and PREVENT this kind of thing from happening. I'm talking about investigation that PRECEDES what they are planning to do. When we can find them and they resist, kill them. But frankly, if we, in conjuction with the German investigators, find a cell of suspected terrorists asleep in their beds in Hamburg , I doubt we can get away with blowing them away in their sleep. As far as someone advocating "hugging", you just pull that sh*t out of your own rear end and then blow it out of your mouth.