Republican Strategist on Larry King "They Know they are at war with us through Jihad but we don't

That woman......ARGHHHHH
We should be hysteric she says
We should have a knee-jerk reaction

Why are there people like this?

She should have absolutely zero airtime on television!

This is extremism is it not?

Jihadists have been "at war" with us since the first attack on the WTC under Clinton. Clinton failed to understand that and treated the perps. like common criminals within our justice system. Obama's Administration is making the same mistake AGAIN. Their first mistake was relabeling our "war on terror" by turning it into a contingency operation. Obama is certainly being tested just like Clinton and Bush were. So far, his initial atttempt at soft talk and apologies with our enemies has failed. It just made him look weak. Jihadists do not respect weakness they take advantage of it.

Pardon me while I put on my special hindsight goggles for a moment... Had Clinton treated the first batch WTC bombers like the enemy combatants that they were, perhaps we could have gleaned more vital intel that could have broken up certain terror cells before they were able to strike again.

These terrorists were able to shut their mouths and lawyer up. The same thing is happening with the Detroit bomber. They will let him plead out, he will throw them some dead end info and he will spend his duration in prison spewing hate and recruiting followers. Obama does not get it! Genius moves like trying to close Gitmo is not going to make the terror war go away.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by jibeho]

reply to post by jibeho


Nah... I think that you don't get it
I can't agree with anything you said

You haven't tried to understand the situation

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
reply to post by jibeho

 

Nah... I think that you don't get it
I can't agree with anything you said

You haven't tried to understand the situation

I certainly don't want you to agree. Just understand a different perspective without defaulting to the "extremist" label for all who disagree with you.

Therefore, please enlighten all of us who "don't get it" with your self described wisdom!! I suppose you'll start by first granting terrorists a US citizenship. Then perhaps you'll let them lawyer up with the ACLU and give them milk and cookies at nap time.

There are 3 ways to respond to acts of terror.

Curl up like a pill bug and do nothing.
React to the attack and retaliate with a single strike.
Detain terror suspects, gather intel and strike strategic targets before the next attack can be launched

Originally posted by jibeho
I suppose you'll start by first granting terrorists a US citizenship. Then perhaps you'll let them lawyer up with the ACLU and give them milk and cookies at nap time.

No US citizenship, no cookies no nap time

Originally posted by jibeho
React to the attack and retaliate with a single strike.
Detain terror suspects, gather intel and strike strategic targets before the next attack can be launched

We tried these two things
War has been ongoing for 9yrs now

try again!

reply to post by ModernAcademia


You forgot to "curl up like a pill bug and do nothing".
Perhaps that will work for you!

This threat from Yemen has been there long before Obama. However, Obama thought that closing Gitmo from day one would be neato. On January 22, 2009, Obama signed an executive order requiring the closure of Gitmo within twelve months. To near universal praise, Obama claimed his action would allow America once again to occupy the "moral high ground" and to "restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism." At the time of this edict, 100 of the 248 detainees were from Yemen. Obama wanted to repatriate these radicals back into a virtually lawless nation that is a hotbed for Al Qaeda activitey.

How is that working so far?



[edit on 5-1-2010 by jibeho]

We NEED them to be at war with us. 41% of global military spending is done by the US. That means we almost spend as much as the rest of the world combined. We have just passed an annual budget of over 650 billion dollars on our military.

We NEED to have a boogey man. If we didn't have an enemy to keep us frightened, we couldn't justify all of that spending. Our entire way of life revolves around this perpetual war. If we suddenly stopped the "war on terror" we would magically start a new cold war with China.

It is perpetual. It will never end. The day we stop this is the day American society as we know it ceases to exist.

I guess we should be thankful that our current bogey man is a disorganized group of men with primitive weaponry.

Originally posted by jibeho
You forgot to "curl up like a pill bug and do nothing".
Perhaps that will work for you!

Don't think so
sarcasm does not make your point stronger I do apologize

Originally posted by jibeho
Obama thought that closing Gitmo from day one would be neato. On January 22, 2009, Obama signed an executive order requiring the closure of Gitmo within twelve months. To near universal praise, Obama claimed his action would allow America once again to occupy the "moral high ground" and to "restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism." At the time of this edict, 100 of the 248 detainees were from Yemen. Obama wanted to repatriate these radicals back into a virtually lawless nation that is a hotbed for Al Qaeda activitey.

How is that working so far?

www.msnbc.msn.com...

As you can see from the link above Obama's "closing gitmo" was nothing but PR.

Try again!

Three strikes are you are out!

reply to post by ModernAcademia

As you can see from the link above Obama's "closing gitmo" was nothing but PR.

You are right!! I agree with your statement. It was one campaign promise that he thought he could deliver. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
That woman......ARGHHHHH
We should be hysteric she says
We should have a knee-jerk reaction

Why are there people like this?

She should have absolutely zero airtime on television!

This is extremism is it not?

LOL, that's how I feel every time I hear "conservatives" speak.

Ah yes!
Let's return to the neocon strategy that has worked so well domesticly and internationally! Let's do it Cheney's way!
As for Clinton and WTC1, gee all the perps but one were tried and are doing life in the Federal pen.
And, tell me how you deter suicide bombers with the threat of violence, (killing them). The US can follow it's own laws, try people like human beings , after all we did with the Nazi's, and show our superiority to the world. To abandon our principles because of terror is to be reactionary in the worst way, and cowardly as well. By the way, both Bush and McCain were in favor of closing Gitmo.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by OldDragger]

The Jihad against non-muslims has been going on continuously for 1,400 years. How this historical fact escapes so many, especially with all the jihad attacks taking place worldwide, is amazing to me. I sometimes think that 9/11 did nothing to alert free peoples of the dangers muslims pose to our culture.

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
I sometimes think that 9/11 did nothing to alert free peoples of the dangers muslims pose to our culture.

But 9/11 DID change our culture
The question is.... who changed it?

Muslims or the Govt.?

We've turning into a surveillance society moving towards fascism, as all of this happens there are still delusional people out there that think muslims are the enemy.

Terroists want to change our way of life...
Pshhh, plz, the govt. is doing that on their own, patriot act, FISA, more and more and more laws
look at this
www.cnn.com...

Terroists hate us for our freedoms?
who is taking our freedoms away

Osama wanted to destroy us economically..
Pshhh, who is doing that?

It's time we start asking ourselves some difficult questions!

reply to post by OldDragger


The only other option is to close shop internationally and bring every soldier home. Incidentally, I would love to see that. Our soldiers will simply have to fend off attacks based from US soil. Maybe that will work. Seal our borders and ignore the rest of the world. Something has to work eventually and abandoning our foreign interests just may the key. I seriously doubt that pulling out of their "neighborhoods" will persuade Jihadists to call off their war.

At what expense though?

It is a never ending debate that no one will ever win.

Our justice system as well as our society are far different than they were in the days post WWII. The legal system actually functioned back then. Our system of "justice" is just as upside down right now as my homes mortgage. Our nation was far more unified and sophisticated back in those days.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
I sometimes think that 9/11 did nothing to alert free peoples of the dangers muslims pose to our culture.

But 9/11 DID change our culture
The question is.... who changed it?

Muslims or the Govt.?

We've turning into a surveillance society moving towards fascism, as all of this happens there are still delusional people out there that think muslims are the enemy.

Terroists want to change our way of life...
Pshhh, plz, the govt. is doing that on their own, patriot act, FISA, more and more and more laws
look at this
www.cnn.com...

Terroists hate us for our freedoms?
who is taking our freedoms away

Osama wanted to destroy us economically..
Pshhh, who is doing that?

It's time we start asking ourselves some difficult questions!

They are not terrorists.

No. No. No. Muslims do not hate us because of our freedoms. It is not even hate. They engage in jihad because we are not muslims and they want all of the world to convert. Jihad is method in which this conversion happens.

The 1,400 year old jihad will not stop until it is defeated by the light of Greece or until we all bow towards Mecca and the holy rock from space.

The reason why we continually escalate our security measure is because no one wants to admit the sad fact that we are in the middle of a civilizational battle. No one wants to consider the possibility that Islamic Imperialism even exists, despite the vast quantities of historical records.


[edit on 5-1-2010 by mike_trivisonno]

[edit on 5-1-2010 by mike_trivisonno]

reply to post by ModernAcademia


We have become a reactionary society. we do not lead, we simply react.
That was Bush's whole style, and unfortunatly the Repubs and the "conservative" right continues to do this to this day. The best way to defend against terror, ( or any kind of attack), is to take control and not let your attacker define the terms or tactics of your defense. The idea that if we are threatened with violence our defense is to be more violent is simply knee jerk, unthinking, and ieffective. The nation needs to keep it's collective cool, making a huge deal of the underwear bomber simply plays into our enemies hands.

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
No. No. No. Muslims do not hate us because of our freedoms. It is not even hate. They engage in jihad because we are not muslims and they want all of the world to convert. Jihad is method in which this conversion happens.

1) When was the last jihad attack?
2) Why is only the U.S. and those involved in war in the middle east being attacked? If it's religious Jihad why attack a superpower first?
why not attack sweeden first or switzlerland?
Why only attack the countries involved in wars against the middle east?

Please provide answers for both questions.

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
The reason why we continually escalate our security measure is because no one wants to admit the sad fact that we are in the middle of a civilizational battle. No one wants to consider the possibility that Islamic Imperialism even exists, despite the vast quantities of historical records.

1) Imperialism still exists, that's why U.S. install puppets govt.s everywhere and have over 800 bases in over 140 countries. Is that not imperialism?

2) Islamic Imperialism may exist but only in the form of encouraged muslim population growth all around the world, no in the form of attacks.

Once again, that classically Amerikan dichotomy rears its ugly two-faced head.

On one side, we have the snide, aggressive reactionary throwing high and tight in order to brush back the opponent with wide strokes, so to speak. Ultimately, this ugly head looks like a rear.

And to the left, the overly-apologetic, equally delusional and understandably defensive pundit cannot muster up of the courage necessary to see the forest fire fed by all the hot breeze.

FAIL x FAIL, to co-opt a cliche.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
No. No. No. Muslims do not hate us because of our freedoms. It is not even hate. They engage in jihad because we are not muslims and they want all of the world to convert. Jihad is method in which this conversion happens.

1) When was the last jihad attack?

The most recent jihad (not terrorist) attack s is the killing of two tribal leaders by the Taliban (phantom organization bandied about for non-muslims to chase after while the real jihad continues unabated). These tribal leaders where killed because they did not practice The Islamic System properly. They may have talked to or co-operated with a non-muslims. Truly a sin worth of death, no?

2) Why is only the U.S. and those involved in war in the middle east being attacked? If it's religious Jihad why attack a superpower first?

The House of Islam first attacked the indigenous Jews, Christians, animists, and pagans living in the Arabian Peninsula. Muslims then quickly advanced on the Persian and Byzantine Empires. Both were utterly destroyed and replaced with monolithic Islamic System of social control.

Indeed, far from being the first, America is the most recent target of jihad attacks.

why not attack sweeden first or switzlerland?

They haven't attacked Switzerland yet. The Swiss recently banned minarets from being built in their country. They know that the minaret is a symbol of Islamic Imperialism. The Islamic world did not like this act. I would expect attacks on the Swiss in the future. They fight against Allah when they don't allow muslims to build minarets.

Sweden? You need to read up a little bit about the jihad in Sweden. Muslims practically own Malmo.

Why only attack the countries involved in wars against the middle east?

They attack non-muslims everywhere. They will even commit jihad on muslims they believe are not earnest enough in their worship of Allah.

You are missing the jihad being waged in Eastern Europe. You also discount the jihad China has been dealing with for centuries on the Western periphery of their Empire.

But for a true look into the black soul of Islam, read about the jihad attack on little school children in Beslan, Russia. Disturbing and evil.

Please provide answers for both questions.

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
The reason why we continually escalate our security measure is because no one wants to admit the sad fact that we are in the middle of a civilizational battle. No one wants to consider the possibility that Islamic Imperialism even exists, despite the vast quantities of historical records.

1) Imperialism still exists, that's why U.S. install puppets govt.s everywhere and have over 800 bases in over 140 countries. Is that not imperialism?

2) Islamic Imperialism may exist but only in the form of encouraged muslim population growth all around the world, no in the form of attacks.

1) America is in the middle of a war against The House of Islam. Sadly our elite class are just as ignorant about jihad as most of us were before 9/11. They are dumbfounded and don't want to admit they have been duped by a cadre of Arab elite and other muslim elites. I would imagine the light of Greece will eventually put an end to the spread of the Islamic System. I would prefer we wage our battle against the muslims in the open. Instead we have suffer the fickle whims of an ignorant planet that would rather extinguish the Light of Greece before they inconvenience a muslim.

2) Your description of Islamic Imperialism is apologetic at the least.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by mike_trivisonno]

[edit on 5-1-2010 by mike_trivisonno]

[edit on 5-1-2010 by mike_trivisonno]

Originally posted by ItsTheQuestion
Once again, that classically Amerikan dichotomy rears its ugly two-faced head.

On one side, we have the snide, aggressive reactionary throwing high and tight in order to brush back the opponent with wide strokes, so to speak. Ultimately, this ugly head looks like a rear.

And to the left, the overly-apologetic, equally delusional and understandably defensive pundit cannot muster up of the courage necessary to see the forest fire fed by all the hot breeze.

FAIL x FAIL, to co-opt a cliche.

Your cartoonish characterization is not supported by historical facts. It is simply your deluded opinion in which America is your boogey man. Welcome to it.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by mike_trivisonno]