It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Counter-terror 'expert' tells cops: Kill militant Muslims, 'including children'

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
we call it a 'war crime' because we make a distinction between combatants and civilians.


...if the "we" is your reference to those who develop and/or distribute justification propaganda for military forces - yes, a distinction is made... they call the slaughter of innocent civilians "collateral damage"...

...you can call a pile of poop a pizza but its still poop...


Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
legitimate self defense you see, is going after your attackers - these war criminals, trouble is when they hide behind their own women and children, in the most densely packed city on earth - so it is kind of problematic to winkle them out without hurting innocent people - it's a choice of the lesser of two evils you see.


...only idiots perceive the lesser of two evils excuse as doing the right thing...




posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 
Do you suppose that being a muslim equates to having a low IQ - NO - problem doubled.

I think you've seriously underestimated human ingenuity. Still, take the average American wannabe policy maker & show him some facts. Will he take notice - NO - problem doubled.

Lets try anyway. The USA has a population thats about 5% of the world, compared to about 25% that are muslim. The USA runs a massive yearly trade deficit (it spends more than it earns) so has a national debt of approx $180,000 per US citizen. For the sake of argument, lets assume that the US Govt could find someone stupid enough to lend it a whole helluva lot more money without obviously self-defeating political strings attached.
If the USA drafted every man & woman between the ages of 18-50 into the military, put everyone else over age 5 into manufacturing war materiel & could buy the necessary food on credit elsewhere, you'd still not have enough military force to enact what you are suggesting. You know why? B/c every family that the USA kills, & they already do, they just call it "collateral damage", creates implacable enemies out of everyone that family were friends with. You just cant argue with the numbers.

How fortunate for you then that there are people in your govt that have @least read Sun Tzu & Machiaveli, understand how impotent the USA actually is, but for the sake of maintaining your illusions, are prepared to eat your humble pie for you. Perhaps not. Maybe its about time you understood that the dish is being served cold & that there are @least 50% of the world who would actively support your enemies just so that the USA will run itself completely into the ground trying to fight "wars" it cannot win.

Now ask yourself how the USA can prevail against the most radical form of Islam which is funded from Saudi Arabia, when the Saudis own 8-10% of the US Domestic Economy?

NO - problem exponentially multiplied.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
we call it a 'war crime' because we make a distinction between combatants and civilians.


...if the "we" is your reference to those who develop and/or distribute justification propaganda for military forces - yes, a distinction is made... they call the slaughter of innocent civilians "collateral damage"...

...you can call a pile of poop a pizza but its still poop...


Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
legitimate self defense you see, is going after your attackers - these war criminals, trouble is when they hide behind their own women and children, in the most densely packed city on earth - so it is kind of problematic to winkle them out without hurting innocent people - it's a choice of the lesser of two evils you see.


...only idiots perceive the lesser of two evils excuse as doing the right thing...




We call the unintentional damage to civillians collateral damage - as opposed to say the deliberate slaughter of civillians by muslims we call that a war crime, they call it doing Allahs work

We call the collateral damage resulting from war criminals blending among the civilian population a war crime in itself - and regard the war criminals as responsible for their damage. They say its a blessing in disguise since they all get tickets to paradise - and it makes the best kind of propaganda for Western idiots to cry crocodile tears over.

Choosing the least evil course of action available is usually the best course to take.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by lurkee
 


Using terrorism to fight terrorism is not working. That after all is what shock and awe is all about, and regardless of protestations to the contrary , IS a tactic currently employed by both the US and UK forces in the so called war on terror.
What the fellow refered to in the article is suggesting ,is not terrorism. Terrorism is an act which is designed to cause fear and despair in a group of people, with the aim of forcing a political change, or set of ideals upon that group of people. However, the so called counter terrorism expert is not advocating such action. The action HE recommends is called genocide. He believes the only way to solve the problem is to kill every militant muslim, and his or her kids as well. Basicaly the man is advocating fascism as a political adgenda, and recommending that those fighting this war on terror, ought to resort to the sort of barbarism which was displayed so starkly by the Nazis in the second world war.
I would like to think that I would not be alone, in wishing that this so called counter terror operative, gets his face smashed in with a hammer, his knees broken, and his genitalia devastated with a concrete block, just to prevent his fascist ideaologies passing along the chain of the anti terror organisations in the world. I will not have Nazis working in my name.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by lurkee
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Counter Terror Expert Not

If he is a Counter Terror Expert then all terrorists must be Counter Terror Experts.

The strategy used here is very weak and detrimental.
Ask a terrorist how to counter terrorism, the terrorist will respond, "using terrorism".



terrorism doesnt exist

its just a term to provide fear and discrimination

really, anyone would go crazy if they raped and killed your children ... well, isnt that whats happening in the other side of the globe? is not like its a war right, when one side doesnt have weapons, the training and the resources, you cant call it a war



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by lurkee
 


Using terrorism to fight terrorism is not working. That after all is what shock and awe is all about, and regardless of protestations to the contrary , IS a tactic currently employed by both the US and UK forces in the so called war on terror.
What the fellow refered to in the article is suggesting ,is not terrorism. Terrorism is an act which is designed to cause fear and despair in a group of people, with the aim of forcing a political change, or set of ideals upon that group of people. However, the so called counter terrorism expert is not advocating such action. The action HE recommends is called genocide. He believes the only way to solve the problem is to kill every militant muslim, and his or her kids as well. Basicaly the man is advocating fascism as a political adgenda, and recommending that those fighting this war on terror, ought to resort to the sort of barbarism which was displayed so starkly by the Nazis in the second world war.
I would like to think that I would not be alone, in wishing that this so called counter terror operative, gets his face smashed in with a hammer, his knees broken, and his genitalia devastated with a concrete block, just to prevent his fascist ideaologies passing along the chain of the anti terror organisations in the world. I will not have Nazis working in my name.


Well firstly the reported quote was not from Shoebat, but from a member of the audience paraphrasing what they believed he meant - to another member of the audience.

Still - it is interesting to note that whenever you scratch a liberal - you find a Nazi underneath!



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


I do not believe it is accurate to say that every time you scratch a liberal, you find a Nazi. One cannot be anti fascist and a Nazi all at once, the two are utterly mutualy exclusive.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


I do not believe it is accurate to say that every time you scratch a liberal, you find a Nazi. One cannot be anti fascist and a Nazi all at once, the two are utterly mutualy exclusive.



I would like to think that I would not be alone, in wishing that this so called counter terror operative, gets his face smashed in with a hammer, his knees broken, and his genitalia devastated with a concrete block, just to prevent his fascist ideaologies passing along the chain of the anti terror organisations in the world. I will not have Nazis working in my name.


Perhaps you should examine your 'beliefs' more closely - they do tend to be trumped by facts!

Perhaps you might like to check to see who put the most people into extermination camps, gulags, re-education camps - or just simply starved or liquidated whole populations en-mass, facists, socialist, communist, progressive, liberal - they keep changing the name as the failures and attrocities keep mounting up - but he all have one thinfg in common - thier 'beliefs' are always more important to them than facts!



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


All right, perhaps I should change my language. It is unacceptable that people who believe in the extermination of ANY group of people, should work for any nation which claims to promote freedom and democracy. Genocide, must NEVER be allowed to be tabled as a strategy, because perpetration of such acts makes the people who do it, and the people they do it on behalf of murderers.
I would fight and kill to prevent my nation being run by people who would allow that to happen in my name, and in the name of my grandfathers, and thier generation, a great many of whom laid down thier life to protect my generation from Hitler and his army of genocidal maniacs. It is unacceptable that ANY democratic nation, could blow the horn of freedom from one hand, and signal the death toll of entire races of man with the other. It is intolerable and must not be allowed to come to pass.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

Counter-terror 'expert' tells cops: Kill militant Muslims, 'including children'


www.rawstory.com

A counter-terrorism consultant told a meeting of law enforcement officials that the way to combat militant Muslims is to "kill them ... including the children," says a news report.

Walid Shoebat, a self-described "former PLO terrorist" who "now speaks out for USA and Israel," reportedly made the comment at a speech during a conference of the International Counter-Terrorism Officers Association in Las Vegas this past October, according to the Huffington Post's Chip Berlet.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Even the Nazi's would not stoop so low as to make such remarks!

Children are innocent, especially the very young ones.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by WatchRider

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

Counter-terror 'expert' tells cops: Kill militant Muslims, 'including children'


www.rawstory.com

A counter-terrorism consultant told a meeting of law enforcement officials that the way to combat militant Muslims is to "kill them ... including the children," says a news report.

Walid Shoebat, a self-described "former PLO terrorist" who "now speaks out for USA and Israel," reportedly made the comment at a speech during a conference of the International Counter-Terrorism Officers Association in Las Vegas this past October, according to the Huffington Post's Chip Berlet.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Even the Nazi's would not stoop so low as to make such remarks!

Children are innocent, especially the very young ones.



According to Berlet's anonymous source, Shoebat's comments got a warm reception from at least some of the people attending the conference: Our source had turned around after Shoebat's speech and asked the woman in the chair behind them at the conference what she thought was the solution offered by Shoebat. "Kill them ... including the children ... you heard him," was the full response. Shoebat's Las Vegas speech was described by our source as "frightening

www.rawstory.com...

Well here is a more accurate rendition of what the article actually said.

It is not a quote from Shoebat, there is no context and it is from an annonymous source - so it is just leftist fearmongering.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


+1



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Walid Shoebat made these comments just to make money over the controversy. This makes his crime even more despicable.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Kill them and watch further radicalization of Islam as a whole happen.... What once was small sects of radical Islamic groups are growing larger and it coincides with violence, deaths and bloodshed at the hands of western allies and military powers.

We are making this monster grow in size and power daily now... One day it will strike back with severe impact, and what will we do?

Kill more Muslims!

This cycle will continue until Nations are at war, and ultimately a world is at war... Seems inevitable now.

Al Qaeda itself will be exploited and used as a proxy to attack western interests, there are larger enemies of the west who will covertly fund, organize and supply future attacks... And of course, that too will be blamed on "Militant Muslims".

You can't kill them all can you?

How many Muslims are there globally now?

How many can be said to be "Militant"?

Rather than spending trillions on wars that only inflame and grow radical Islam and ultimately increase the numbers of Militant Muslims world wide, why not pull back and try to put the same amount of time, effort, money and human recourses into peaceful initiatives, diplomacy and to use that power to establish, secure and support an independent Palestinian state?

Find ways to remove the fuel from these fires, or eventually we all may BURN!


edit on 29-12-2010 by Fractured.Facade because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


You know, I avoided this thread, because I knew my opinion would be unpopular and politically incorrect, but I am going to say it anyway.

Completely ignoring the term "Muslim" and just looking at this from a long-term solution to warfare. I am of the opinion that Sun Tsu was correct in warfare. You either take your enemy whole without much of a fight, or you annihilate your enemy to the point that you do not leave a new generation to rise up against you in the future.

I am not advocating killing innocent people, especially children, but on the other hand, if a child loses his parents in an unholy war and is then left to grow, learn, and contemplate revenge, how can the war ever end? We have to either extend all our human rights and privileges to our enemy and convert and befriend them, or we have to use overwhelming force to ensure immediate and long-lasting victory.

Currently we are using a toxic combination of too little force and too much abuse and political backpedaling.

In order to end this centuries old war, either we hold ourselves to extremely high standards, prosecute abuse, extend rights to our enemy, and serve as a beacon of hope in the Middle East, or we carpet bomb, overwhelm, intimidate, and control the area for decades until the abuses are forgotten and the lifestyle is Westernized. I am a fan of Option 1, I believe we should be the beacon of hope and human rights, but either option is preferable to our current strategy of sacrificing our own soldiers to protect certain civilians, while abusing prisoners, murdering other civilians, and denying rights and privileges of law to our captives.

Like it or not war is ugly and bloody and sad. So, do we let it drag on for decades or perhaps centuries, or do we swallow the hard bullets now with a better future in sight?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 



In a different perspective, some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or
0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.


www.danielpipes.org...

Muslims have a completely different moral perspective than Westerners - they are not much concerned with muslims killing other muslims - they only get upset when infidels have the temerity to fight back.

As for the high tone morality that peoples heads seem to be stuffed with - realise it has only been put there to make you easier to control!



Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 38

A truly good man is not aware of his goodness, And is therefore good.

.....................

Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is ritual.
Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.
Knowledge of the future is only a flowery trapping of the Tao.
It is the beginning of folly.


www.wussu.com...



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Completely ignoring the term "Muslim" and just looking at this from a long-term solution to warfare. I am of the opinion that Sun Tsu was correct in warfare. You either take your enemy whole without much of a fight, or you annihilate your enemy to the point that you do not leave a new generation to rise up against you in the future.


You can't ignore the term "Muslim" it has been so effectively tied to the "enemy" that it is inseparable. Just add any words you like with "Muslim" like; Radical, Militant, Fundamentalist, Extremist and etc.

So, if your warfare logic is valid the only way to defeat this enemy is to annihilate it?

Well, you better build massive concentration camps with rail service, gas chambers and massive ovens for cremations, also large land fills for overflow of corpses... You've got millions to kill.



I suppose peace has no chance, and humanity itself is a lost cause after-all.

No point in fighting this "enemy" unless we have an end game plan to win and defeat that enemy.. Let the annihilations begin.





posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


Annhilation was 1 of my 2 preferred methods, and it ranked last on my list.

In my opinion, if we go to war, it should either be as "Liberators" or "Conquerors" and there is no middle ground. If we truly intended to liberate Iraq, then we should afford all the human rights, conditions, and protections that our own citizens enjoy. On the battlefield there should be a little bit of latitude to make battlefield decisions to protect troops, but once the enemy is in custody, they deserve fair and humane treatment, speedy trials, etc. In this manner, we could have served as an example of hope and we could have won the hearts and minds of the country. If we had the hearts and minds of the country, there would not be a market for insurgency! Our own backdoor dealing, bribery, abuse, and unlawful detention of alleged enemy combatants created the need for the insurgency.

Now, if our intention was never to liberate, but was actually to conquer and take the oil reserves and assets, then we should have used more force, and and we should have seized the resources and ruled the land by force. If we had taken this role, then it would have been necessary to use overwhelming force and not leave a bunch of angry, orphaned children to rise up against us over the next decade or so.

I say ignore the term "Muslim," because in my opinion these two strategies apply to any war, and I could throw out Vietnam and Korea as examples where our modern theory of warfare has fallen short. The last war that we "won" was WWII. Since then we have preferred the softer term "conflict" and we have worried more about politics than military strategy, and it has resulted in long-lasting strife with no clear victory or outcome. Things have not improved significantly in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

I'm sure any military commander will tell you that it is impossible to "win" without a clear mission objective. Our last few objectives were to "invade" but then what?



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

In my opinion, if we go to war, it should either be as "Liberators" or "Conquerors" and there is no middle ground.


If we go to war?

The war on terror or any other name it has been given has been ongoing for years now, and it is a war against Muslims.

We have been both "Liberators" and "Conquerors" of Muslims in predominately Muslim sovereign lands ... Liberators in the minds of much of the world as portrayed in the popular media, and Conquerors in the minds of our enemies and hundreds of millions of attentive Muslims around the world. The middle ground is exactly where we are. There is no either or, we are both and that is an unsustainable situation as this is a war that cannot be won. It only serves to further divide the people of the world and enhances the continuation and escalation of violence, attacks and wars.

I suppose too much has been invested in the Military and in this war to change the overall strategy now, but you have to know that it is a war that cannot be won, and we will only give cause and justification to this enemy to find ways to attack us in the future, and each will only escalate the cycle of violence and war.

In the end, the only victors will be the Zionists and their agendas to keep the status quo in Israel, and to keep the world at war with Islam.




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


I was speaking philosophically. I have already made my opinion that the current state of war is extremely flawed! Perhaps it is "anti-Muslim," and we are certainly playing both roles of liberator and conqueror, which is why I criticized the current state. In my opinion there is no middle ground, and it is impossible to play both roles successfully; it can only breed further warfare.

I think we are agreeing in concept, but you are misinterpreting the intention of my posts.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join