Behold, the fruits of liberalism. What idiots Westerners are for letting the Muslims in by the millions. The culture and traditions of Islam has no place in it for Democratic institutions, liberty, and the traditional culture of others. True Islam only provides three alternatives for all those it comes into contact with; conversion, submission, or death. Western Civilization continues to slit its own throat and has no one to blame for it but itself. When will people learn?
Conservatives have been warning about the foolish policies both here and abroad that lead to such events, but the cries of the Paul Revere’s of the modern age are not heeded.It’s easy to laugh at and mock the silliness and lack of logic that our “Progressive” friend spout, but in practice the ideology they preach leaves a path of doom, death, and destruction and undermines the very foundational pillars of Western Civilization, logic, and common sense. Two tragedies have recently occurred that shine the spotlight of truth on such statements.
In London, a brave and committed soldier was massacred on a public street as passerbys gawked and even conversed with his blood-splattered killers while Sweden has now seen several nights of riots by Muslims. “Multiculturalism” and “diversity” are fun little words to banter around and are a part and parcel of the liberal agenda, but rarely do they bring forth the promised fruits of a utopian society. In fact, far too often it delivers nothing but blood, death, strife, discord, and societal fragmentation.
The reality is far darker than any like to admit. Of course, not every Muslim is a threat, and not every threat comes from a Muslim. But the religion itself was born in a flood of blood and conquest by the sword against all “infidels.” Such beliefs are as much at the heart of the religion as “love your neighbor as yourself” and the Ten Commandments are to Christianity. Islam has waged unceasing war against the West since its founding in the seventh century and it continues to this day.
This video shows the moment the two terrorists who butchered soldier Lee Rigby also tried to kill a woman cop who was first on the scene of the carnage.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/2OkzVYeNDds[/youtube]
From the video description:
“Shocking footage obtained by the Daily Mirror shows how the calculating pair lured officers to the scene by dragging the body into the middle of the road and brazenly waiting for armed police to arrive.When the first police car arrived the pair split up in a pre-planned manoeuvre with knife-wielding Michael Adebolajo charging them head-on, while his accomplice ran up alongside, aiming his revolver at them.The film of the 10 seconds of terror show how Adebolajo got within TWO FEET of the terrified female cop who was driving the armed response vehicle.She was armed with just a Taser as she sat in the driver’s seat of the BMW X5 and was only saved when a male colleague sitting in the back made a split-second decision to fire his machine-gun from point blank range through the window.As he is sent sprawling to the ground by the force of the two shots and the two cops jump out to cover him they appear to fail to spot the other suspect aiming his hand gun at them.Luckily a third SO19 marksman running round from the far side of the specialist Trojan unit spots him and he is brought to the ground as a further volley of six shots ring out in the suburban street in Woolwich, south east London.Former Det Ch Ins Peter Kirkham, an expert in firearms tactics said after watching the footage today: ” I have never seen anything like this before, or even heard of it happening before.
“For two suspects to carry out a brutal attack like this then stand around in plain sight waiting for the police is crazy.
“The instant the spot the police car come round the corner they are on it straight away. The first one is sprinting full speed towards the cops before they have even got out the car.
“The female officer only has her Taser out and must have been terrified. They had no option but to open fire to stop them.”
The dramatic climax to the horrific attack was filmed by a resident in a tower block over looking the scene in Artillery Road and captures the moment the terrorist charges the officers in a suspected death-by-cop suicide bid.
Such incidents as these, or the Boston bombing for that matter, are not mere isolated incidents but part of a vast pattern of attacks on the West and its institutions and a recurring theme that we see time and time again. To purposefully and willfully introduce these elements into Western countries and societies is a dramatic betrayal by some of their own people, culture, and nation. And we are not talking about the introduction of these potentially dangerous and radical elements into Western society in small numbers, but by the millions. It is amazingly irresponsible, dangerous, and increasingly catastrophic to entire peoples and continents. At what point will the West say “enough is enough” and stop such foolishness? Or is it too late already?
Only in small numbers have the followers of teachings of Mohammad shown themselves willing to assimilate into other cultures. Normally, the urge to subvert the dominate culture and substitute their own sharia laws and code of conduct is paramount, especially in large numbers. It causes endless friction and sometimes outright violence against the same people who, in their foolishness, offered up the hospitality of their society to them.
It is the stated goal and policy of liberalism to flood the West with such as these.
Thanks guys! It’s working out great.
Crossposted from Constitution Club
@Wordsmith:
Why did the Islamic hoards invade Europe in the 1600’s? Do you think that Switzerland was giving them a hard time?
Hey Wordsmith… do you need some binoculars for those goal posts that just got shifted to never never land?
@George Wells:
I’ve heard this claim parroted for years and I frankly don’t buy into it. I think that the American people are much more intelligent and capable then you, politicians and much of the MSM give them credit for. When you treat the public like they are eight years old and only give them limited, heavily edited, and often politically spun information, you make it impossible for them to make educated decisions. If all they get are sound bites. propaganda and tabloid gossip sensationalized and presented as “news”, what the hell do they have to work with? Americans in this recession are much too busy trying to make a living to afford the time to research every issue, and what’s worse is that they are so tired of being lied to and fed BS by politicians and the MSM, that they have tuned out. Rather than patting the public on the head in patronizing superiority, you should be cursing and chewing out the information providers.
@MataHarley: Naw…I think I can see those posts on the move, even without my contacts in. 😉
@retire05 #101:
First, here’s something you won’t ever find yourself doing:
I apologize, retire, as I misspoke. I mistook the term “blanket amnesty” for “blanket citizenship.” You are correct that the proposals being considered do not include throwing 10 million illegals in jail OR deporting them. I think that open borders would be a mistake. The proposed amnesty is not open-ended as open borders would be, and I support the amnesty proposal as a practical way to solve a bad problem. I haven’t seen a better, more workable solution. Again, I apologize, as the mistake was mine.
Per your “As to the San Joaquin Valley; every article I have read is that the water was cut due to the Delta smelt, not salt.”
I suggest you Google “Salt in the San Joaquin Valley.”
Smelt or not, the salt is the real killer in the SJV. I could give you all of the geology if you’d like, but you really should look into what the real problem is out there before you vilify the environmentalists. They didn’t create the salt problem, and it’s really too late to fix. Bottom line is, I don’t care about this issue because it’s a “nothing can be done” scenario. Waste the water if you want – I don’t care about the fish. And the faster you do, the faster you get Death Valley #2.
“I believe life has importance, George.”
You have every right to your beliefs, as do I. And I do think life is “important,” just not “sacred.”
I noticed you didn’t rebut “We are not on the gold standard anymore – the money supply is fluid. When we print more money, prices inflate, and inflation diminishes the real impact of the national debt.” That’s rather important, because inflation is the one thing that has kept the USA – and almost everybody else – from going bankrupt. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t ADVOCATE using inflation to solve our fiscal dilemmas. But it’s right there waiting to dilute our debt. Hurts folks on fixed income, including anyone holding “paper.” But as a cynical plan to get what you want, it’s no worse than lowering taxes at the same time you have to pay for a couple of wars to gain an excuse to gut social programs that you don’t like. (Yeah, I read the book.)
“A nation that spends more than it takes in is unsustainable.”
True for an individual but not for a NATION. Nations can and do print money – the difference. Check your Econ 101.
“I don’t see conservatives yelling for criminalization of homosexuality.”
Read Scalia’s Lawrence dissent again. Given the chance, he’d STILL reverse Lawrence, and from his perspective, he has a very good reason to do so.
“Congress cannot overturn Lawrence.”
Sure they can. A Constitutional amendment would do the trick. There are those in Congress who would support such an amendment, so I have to keep voting the way I do. Sorry…
“Not one thing you say you support is conservative in any manner.”
Just to cover the recent news item, I support full 2nd amendment rights. That’s conservative, isn’t it? For that matter, I support ALL of the constitution and its amendments. Clearly, we have a few differences of interpretation there-in, but we are both basically on the same page. I’m just a bit more reluctant to start WWIII than you are, and a bit less confident that our allies will be there at our side when the missiles fly.
“Liar?”
No. Stupid, perhaps. But the answers I give you are as sincere as I can make them. I don’t need to construct lies to make you angry – you get there quickly enough when I tell you the truth.
I do wonder, though, why it is that you are so angry that you must insult so frequently. Doesn’t seem very Christian.
@George Wells:
I will, and have, when it was warranted. So far, you haven’t warranted any apology from me.
What the hell are you talking about? Our borders are nothing more than a sieve. I don’t know where you live, but from where I sit, we might as well put Welcome Wagon ladies on the border. This administration tells us the “borders are more secure than ever” and that is a flat out lie. Napolitano knows better. Yeah, apprehensions are down but why? I suggest you go here and get truly informed from the boots on the ground:
http://www.local2544.us
Why would I rebut a known fact or do you think I am as ill informed as you are?
Yes, and it would have to be voted on, and accepted, by a majority of the states. Obviously you seem to think there is a possibility such an amendment would be accepted by the states.
Excuse me if I doubt your sincerity.
How about the Fourth Amendment? Do you support it? Or do you support the actions of this Administration that violates that very amendment?
I hate to break it to you, George, but WWIII has already started. It started on September 11, 2001.
Who the hell are you to lecture me about Christianity when your very life style, and your choices, are the polar opposite of what Christ taught?
George I ask you sincerely and without rancor. Are you a masochist? Why else would you endure the abuse heaped on you by Reto5 and her partner RedTeam? Do you actually enjoy it? Just askin.
@retire05 #107:
In post #106, I said:
“I support ALL of the constitution and its amendments.
So in post #107 you responded:
“How about the Fourth Amendment? Do you support it? Or do you support the actions of this Administration that violates that very amendment?”
Argumentative this morning are we?
Did I not say that I supported ALL of the amendments to the Bill of Rights?
That means that I support the Fourth Amendment, and it means that I do not support violations to it. How was that difficult to understand?
Since the remainder of your post contains nothing but irrelevant bickering and denial of the obvious, I’ll move on to the last:
“Who the hell are you to lecture me about Christianity.”
It doesn’t take a whole lot of effort to figure out that many of Christianity’s fundamental sentiments of charity and forgiveness are today in jeopardy. As evidenced by Westboro Baptist Church “GOD-HATES-FAGS” demonstrations at the funerals of fallen military heroes and by hate-filled rhetoric on Flopping Aces, Christian Extremism is alive and well in America. As this often-time violent rhetoric is aimed squarely at ME, and as I AM and have always BEEN a Christian, I very well WILL lecture you when you violate HIS teachings.
“when your very life style, and your choices, are the polar opposite of what Christ taught?”
Christ taught that EVERYONE sins, and he did NOT designate “preferred” sinners or single out specific sinners that needed to be persecuted by YOU.
Your GOD is that angry, irrationally vengeful GOD of the Old Testament. Mine is a loving, merciful and forgiving GOD. If you have a right to tell me about YOUR GOD, I have a right to tell you about MINE.
@Richard Wheeler:
“George I ask you sincerely and without rancor. Are you a masochist? Why else would you endure the abuse heaped on you by Reto5 and her partner RedTeam? Do you actually enjoy it?”
LOL.
Nope, not a masochist. I actually enjoy it. Reminds me of what is out there and keeps me motivated to be politically responsible.
I try to do something nice for a stranger every day, and when they thank me, I tell them that I am gay, and would appreciate their support. You would be AMAZED at how often I get VERY positive responses! When I tell folks I recently married my partner of 38 years, I usually get hugged and congratulated. It’s been a very reinforcing experience.
I also need the stimulation. I’ve been retired for some time, and I keep very busy working on my two acres (I love gardening) and restoring antique china. But those activities are not intellectually challenging. Responding to “difficult” adversaries takes thought I am recently unaccustomed to. The exercise sharpens my mind and prepares me to witness more effectively. I appreciate redteam and retire05’s contributions to that end.
Capisce?
@George Wells:
Do you avail yourself of commercial flights?
Ah, yes, when your argument is weak, drag out the dredges of the Westboro Baptist Church that no other Christian group agrees with but don’t mention any of the radical homosexual groups that have many more members than Westboro. And no, you’re not really a Christian if you don’t accept the rules of Christ. You are a Christian in name only. Not my rules, His.
True. But He also said that we should repent, and go and sin no more. You continue to live a sinful lifestyle. There is no repentance as long as you continue to do what you do.
No, my God is a benevolent God that forgives your sins if you repent and sin no more. You haven’t done that, now have you? There is no where in the New Testament where Christ says that your sins will be forgiven if you continue to commit the same sin over and over again.
Aren’t you special. Have you not read that good works should be done in secret? Yet, you want to brag about your good works.
What is the purpose in telling a stranger that you are homosexual? Basically, what you just admitted was that your good works are for no other reason than pushing your homosexual agenda. I doubt that Christ would count those as coming from the heart. And why do you need reinforcing? Do you think that heterosexuals need to be reinforced in their heterosexuality? You are giving the impression that you are saying “I do good works every day and look how great I am because I am queer.”
@retire05 #111:
“radical homosexual groups that have many more members than Westboro.”
Oh. Good. Now you believe that as long as there are only 40 people doing something outrageous, it’s OK, but if 300 are being outrageous, THAT’S BAD! Where is the cut-off?
As I am totally in the dark about “radical Homosexual groups,” but you follow them like a shadow, why don’t you point some of them out so I can give you an informed opinion, if that’s what you want? Or leave me in the dark over your feared gay boogymen.
“Do you avail yourself of commercial flights?”
WTF?
“I supported ALL of the amendments to the Bill of Rights. That means that I support the Fourth Amendment, and it means that I do not support violations to it.”
If that makes you itch, see a doctor. It’s not my problem.
“There is no repentance as long as you continue to do what you do.”
“you continue to commit the same sin over and over again.”
And just what is it that I continue to do, sweetheart, that has you so morally outraged, so flush with righteous indignation? As if you have knowledge of such things – I can’t stop laughing!
“Aren’t you special.” “What is the purpose in telling a stranger that you are homosexual?”
A very good question, and I am glad that you asked it!
The purpose is to demonstrate that gay people are not the outrageous, horrible, child-molesting criminals that we have so often been portrayed. Back when we were all in the closet, it was easy for the haters to paint us however they wished, as nobody knew otherwise. But now, every time a gay person who does a good job at work, who volunteers in his or her community, who behaves responsibly, who serves his or her country with courage and distinction, who sets a good example for other young gays and who announces the TRUTH, the ugly stereotype is diminished.
Heterosexuals haven’t spent the last two hundred years in the closet – they don’t need to set the record straight. But gays haven’t been so fortunate, and we must compensate for many years of misrepresentation.
I’m doing my part.
Thanks for asking!
@George Wells: There it is. Tourette Syndrome to follow.lol
@George Wells, that’s funny. I have to say when I first read rich’s question about your masochism, the first two words that came to my mind was “bas relief”.
The second two were “lab rats”.
@George Wells:
Where did I say that? Oh, wait, I said nothing of the sort. It’s just you making things up again.
You are more than welcome to go through previous posts if you want to know. But I suspect you would rather ignore the military groups in your own midst as they do not make you look good.
Shall we start calling you Clueless George? It seems fitting.
You already admitted to participating in sodomy.
Glad I can bring a little bit of humor into your life.
Finally, you admit you’re pushing an agenda. That’s a start.
@MataHarley #114:
More like comic relief, no?
Getting back to the Liberal/Islamic alliance…..
Dennis Prager has weighed in on this very topic.
He calls it the The ‘Muslims-Killed-by-the-West’ Lie
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_muslims-killed-by-the-west_lie_118597.html
He points up three lies the Left and/Islam perpetrate.
The argument is morally perverse and a lie.
The U.K. and others are in Afghanistan in order to defend Muslims. Brits and other Westerners are risking their lives, and dying, in that country on behalf of Muslims.
So, #1:
Read #2 yourself.
I’ll skip to #3:
He concludes:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obama recently instigated a new Core Curriculum GED test that even HOME SCHOOLED students must take and pass to get their GED, High School equivalency.
Many of the ”questions” require answers based out of included paragraphs.
One of them is about US foreign policy.
It is completely riddled with the falsehoods Dennis Prager discusses above.
One sentence even says that poor Afghanis made up the bulk of the 9-11-01 hijackers!
And, to pass the test, a student must parrot these lies successfully.
@retire05 #115:
I’ll start at the end: “Finally, you admit you’re pushing an agenda.”
I’ve had an agenda all along.
“AGENDA” – a list, outline or plan of things to be done.
Yes, I have an agenda. My day would be pretty aimless without one. The word “agenda” is not a dirty word.
And as some of my goals are political in nature, meaning that the agreement of others is required if my goals are to be reached, yes, I’m “pushing,” just as every other politically motivated person on either side of the isle “pushes” on behalf of their constituents.
I have never said that I did not have an agenda. You just assumed that I shared the same agenda that some of your favorite radical leftist homosexual groups have, but I don’t have a clue WHO you mean OR what their agenda is, so you are most likely wrong about that.
“You already admitted to participating in sodomy.”
Not since 1980. Not that it’s any business of yours. But after 33 years, I’d hardly characterize that as “continuing.”
“Do you avail yourself of commercial flights?”
WTF?
“Shall we start calling you Clueless George? It seems fitting.”
Clueless George? You’ve called me much worse. For that matter, I AM clueless, as your question was too obtuse for me to field. If there is a point to that line, make it and stop trying to be cute. You’re not.
“But I suspect you would rather ignore the military groups in your own midst as they do not make you look good.”
More mystery pseudo-references. You could save yourself time and just ask me questions in a made-up language. I know what the words mean, but I have no frame of reference in which the statement makes any sense.
“Oh. Good. Now you believe that as long as there are only 40 people doing something outrageous, it’s OK, but if 300 are being outrageous, THAT’S BAD! Where is the cut-off?”
“Where did I say that? Oh, wait, I said nothing of the sort. It’s just you making things up again.”
I’ll try again: YOUR comment:
“your argument … drag(s) out the dredges of the Westboro Baptist Church that no other Christian group agrees with but don’t mention any of the radical homosexual groups that have many more members than Westboro.”
seemed to be making an issue about two differences. One difference was that I brought up the Westboro Baptict Church, but that I did not mention any radical homosexual groups. The Westboro Baptist Church has been making headlines here in Virginia for several years, radical homosexual groups have not. I have already told you that I don’t KNOW of any radical homosexual groups. There don’t make the news here. They don’t get mentioned on the television I watch either. OOPS! I did hear about NAMBLA some years ago, and they certainly are radical. They’re a fringe bunch of sick puppies. I wish they’d drop dead. There, I mentioned a radical homosexual group. Now you must be ecstatic!
(Is that what you meant?)
The other difference was that you made a point of calling attention to the number of members associated with the Westboro Baptist Church as opposed to the number of members of radical homosexual groups, as if the difference bvetween the two numbers was important. I don’t see that the relative numbers of members makes any difference. But if that wasn’t the point you were trying to make by mentioning relative membership, what WAS your point?
@Nan G #117:
You got a bunch of good stuff there, but this isn’t part of it:
“The U.K. and others are in Afghanistan in order to defend Muslims.”
We went into Afghanistan because the Taliban was harboring Osama Bin Laden and wouldn’t turn him over to us. When we got there, we couldn’t find OBL, and the Taliban was recalcitrant. So we set about “disrupting” the Taliban while we looked high and low for OBL. Defending innocent Muslims might have been a useful byproduct of the adventure, but it wasn’t the purpose. And we have stayed beyond our original purpose because as we displaced the Taliban, Al Qaida opportunistically filled the void. And we foolishly thought that once Afghans got a taste of good ole U.S. of Apple Pie, they’d sue for democracy. They didn’t, and now we’ve been trying to figure out how to back out of a hopeless situation without losing too much face and without dishonoring the American heroes who gave their lives for the cause. Once we’ve left, the country goes back to the way it was, and girls we’ve schooled will be toast. Spin your marmalade on that!
Tell it like it is.
I recall Americans and Brits BUILDING schools so little girls could get an education.
USAID as built more than 680 schools in Afghanistan.
The one guy who wrote “Three Cups of Tea,” built over 25 schools.
Every election saw American, Brits and other NATO forces protecting Afghani voters, even at pain of death.
Obama, in 2009, cut down protection of the Afghani people to only those in the 10 most populated areas.
Major agricultural areas USED to be also protected, but Obama decided not to.
As a result insurgents were given free rein across large parts of Afghanistan, allowing the Taliban to establish ministates with training camps that could be used by Al Qaeda.
Gee, thanks, Obama!
NOT!
@George Wells:
So where in that sentence do you find where I said I ” believe that as long as there are only 40 people doing something outrageous, it’s OK.” I said nothing of the sort, and the only way you can get there is to twist what I said. Something you do quite frequently. Then you try to make it about numbers. How pathetic. on your part.
uh…..
“…groups that have many more members than Westboro” equals “…”…make[ing] it about numbers”l
How pathetic….
@MataHarley #122:
Absolutely. Retire05 seems to have forgotten her own words. SHE made an issue of the numbers of members of each, and I called her on it. So she shifted blame. With intellectual integrity like that, she could be a Democrat!
LOL!
George Wells: I’d offer you the use of my cyber binoculars to keep track of those ever shifting goal posts.. originally offered to Wordsmith above. But I suspect that the moving target lab rat makes for a more engaging piece of entertainment, George.
Meanwhile, I’m waiting for that touted (parapharased) “I apologize” to people proof/link from retire. Still ROTFLMAO on that one…. There’s just no end to the guffaws to be had.
@George Wells:
Bullshit. I made an “issue” out of the fact that you called down a Christian group while you had never called down any militant gay groups, although those gay groups were large. Spin it all you want. You, and Mata who would side with the devil himself against me, are wrong, as usual.
D0es this statement stsnd on its own?
Does this stand on its own?
And unfortunately, Mata still seems to be of the opinion that I give a shit about anything she has to say.
Wait.. first you are more pious than God and Christ, condemning those who don’t “repent” as non-Christian (you might want to check back with Christian theologists on that one, cookie…). And now you are more powerful an adversary than Lucifer himself?
LOL
You really need to get a grip on yourself.
Meanwhile.. back at the ranch, retire quoteth retire:
A few of us have tried to point out that sentences, paragraphs and “English construction” – which you are so quick to lecture others on – means something. But by all means… please feel free to parse words for desperate redemption, along with the lib/progs who use the same tactic when cornered. There is no substitute for good entertainment, ya know.
As one of the most *famous* of lib/progs – Bill Clinton – pointed out, “is” stands alone too, and it all depends upon what the “meaning of ‘is’, is”. My guess is, like Telflon Bill, you want to make it mean whatever is convenient to your own redemption.
So, retire… where’s those “I apologize” links of yours? Your claim. Your onus. Dying to see that ditty.
@MataHarley:
‘
No parsing. But I am also not prone to twisting the words of others to redefine their meaning as you and Georgie are.
.
If you’re so interested in finding it, you look for it. Or dig it out of that photographic memory of yours.
Oh, yeah, and you’re still just a bitch that would side with the devil against me, or for that matter, anyone who challenges you.
We’ve tried to tell you over and over, and you hold others to it as well – your claim as fact… your onus. I assure you, such a miraculous moment would have made my bookmark archives. I’ll take that as you can’t find a damn thing to back up your claim, and it’s just gratuitious lip service.
oh yes…. Honey, if I’m a “bitch”, I can’t even imagine what category is reserved for you.
You’re new to this forum. On the other hand, I, rich wheeler and tiresome go way back. And rich knows that he and I have no lost love for political differences. But hence his question about self inflicted masochism. Tiresome is as predictable as rain in Oregon in winter. You’ll figure it out as you go along.
@ Nan G #120:
Yes, we did all that and more. We even tried to make a serious dent in the country’s opium poppy crop. How’d we do there?
“Opium production in Afghanistan has been on the rise since U.S. occupation started in 2001… In 2007, 92% of the non-pharmaceutical-grade opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan. In addition to opiates, Afghanistan is also the largest producer of cannabis (mostly as hashish) in the world.[5][6]
While U.S. and allied efforts to combat the drug trade have been stepped up, the effort is hampered by the fact that many suspected drug traffickers are now top officials in the Karzai government.[22] Recent estimates by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimate that 52% of the nation’s GDP, amounting to $2.7 billion annually, is generated by the drug trade.
Some 3.3 million Afghans are involved in producing opium.”
Not effective. And small wonder. Afghans have no reason to trust us or anyone else. We’ve all used their country as a dirty playground for military mischief:
“The Soviet war in Afghanistan lasted nine years from December 1979 to February 1989. Part of the Cold War, it was fought between Soviet-led Afghan forces against multi-national insurgent groups called the Mujahideen. The insurgents received military training in neighboring Pakistan and China, as well as[8] billions of dollars from the United States, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and other countries.[2][3][4][8][23] The decade-long war resulted in millions of Afghans fleeing their country, mostly to Pakistan and Iran. Hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilians were killed in addition to the participants in the war.”
Any good we tried to do was sullied by our own record. It was obvious that fixing the country would take centuries, not years, and trillions of dollars, not billions. Obama figured out what Bush could not: that Afghanistan was a hopeless money pit that would never change. How many years short of forever did you plan for us to stay there?
One last point: If we really WERE in Afghanistan for the humanitarian reasons you claim, why aren’t we also all over the globe, in every other country ruled by ruthless despots who brutally abuse their people?
Because that wasn’t the point of the Afghan Exercise. We went for Osama, and we got him. We went to kick the Taliban, and consider it kicked. We accomplished the goals that were attainable. Game over. Get out.
@ MataHarley:
I was really having fun here, and I have tried VERY hard to be gentlemanly. But now I’m beginning to feel guilty about upsetting someone who may well be in the advanced stages of something neurological.
Two nights ago I was awakened by a raccoon that was throwing itself against my front storm door, barking and squealing all the while. I retrieved a broom and tried to alter its behavior, but to no avail. I then retrieved a pitchfork from the garden shed, and when once again confronted by the aggressive malcontent, dispatched it post-haste. The animal control officer who came to pick up the body said that it had either rabies or canine distemper, and would likely have died within a week in any event, as the brain damage causing the observed behavior was severe.
Sound familiar?
@George Wells:
Really? Then why are we still pouring American dollars into that sand lot?
Perhaps you have forgotten that Obama campaigned on Afghanistan being the “good” war. In almost 8 years of American presence in Afghanistan, the U.S. lost 630 American soldiers under Bush. In just 53 months, Obama has lost 1,598 American soldiers for a “good” war that is no better, in fact is worse, than it was under Bush.
@MataHarley:
I’ll take it you don’t want to find it. Odd, since you seem to have the capacity to find another posters comments from the very day they signed on here. Selective research?
And while you’re advising George, perhaps you would like to find your statement where you said I had him pegged from the beginning (or something along that line)? You can correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems he challenged you that day and you resorted to your standard lashing out at anyone who dares disagree with you telling him I had him pegged from the start. Or does your memory not recall that?
George will disagree with you eventually and then he will learn that a rapid bitch really doesn’t care who she bites.
I can find that statement quite easily… archives are a wonderful thing. You should learn to use them. It’s right here. My quote from that comment, in full:
If you’ll note, it relates to George’s claims that he’s a “conservative”… which apparently has little meaning here since I’m not one, and supposedly have been reclassified into the “small “l” libertarian class. “Classes”… isn’t that a liberal thing? But I digress. Of course, you *said* you used a small “L” when you originally labeled me that. That is, of course, not true either, but I let it pass. LOL
The abuse for George is warranted, IMHO, for not being a fiscal conservative. He isn’t, IMHO. And I’ll be happy to address that challenge of fiscally conservative when the moment arises. (probably with more civility than you) Oh wait… didn’t I do that at that very moment? LOL
However your personal abuse about his personal choices of lifestyle, not to mention your supposedly “Christian” condemnation, is nothing but a reflection on you and that category that is anything but as kind as being a “bitch”. That comment did not offer you carte blanche blanket abuse, as you continually heap.
Not my job. You’re the one who said you “apologize” when warranted. Your claim. Your onus. Personally I thought that was the laugh of the day. But I suspect hell will freeze over before you ever admit you don’t apologize for jack.
@MataHarley:
OK, you win. I lose. You ego has been salved. Happy?
Wow… that sounds genuine and from the heart. But the best one can expect, I guess.
@ MataHarley & retire05:
Uh, I just got Goose-bumps?
That isn’t supposed to happen down here, is it?
I mean, like, this place is, like, FREEZING OVER!?!
(“a rapid bitch.” I guess that means Mata types fast… wish I could!)
@retire05 #135:
“Really? Then why are we still pouring American dollars into that sand lot?
Perhaps you have forgotten that Obama campaigned on Afghanistan being the “good” war. In almost 8 years of American presence in Afghanistan, the U.S. lost 630 American soldiers under Bush. In just 53 months, Obama has lost 1,598 American soldiers for a “good” war that is no better, in fact is worse, than it was under Bush.”
GOOD FREEKIN’ QUESTION!
Unfortunately, Obama forgot to ask ME. Instead, he listened to his generals and to his political advisors who told him that he needed to look STRONG, not weak, if he wanted to win elections. And so he surged. I could have puked. But if he hadn’t, he’d have never had the chance to say some pretty words about gays at his inauguration speech #2, so I’ll give him a reluctant pass on that one. Chalk it up to political expedience. But for all the potential trillions worth of untapped mineral reserves there, for us, Afghanistan is still just a blood-soaked sand lot and a lose-lose situation any way you cut it.
@George Wells:
Yeah, the deaths of 54 American soldiers since Obama’s second term began is a small price to pay for “some pretty words about gays.”
And you wonder why I have zero respect for you?
@retire05 #138:
Do you want the United States to pursue Muslim Extremism around the globe or not? Because it’s still there in Afghanistan today, and rooting more deeply with every passing day.
Yes, you’d put a temporary hold on your Crusade against Muslims if doing so would get rid of your hated Obama four years earlier. And you accuse ME of ethical prostitution?
You have zero respect for ME? Wait! Wasn’t it Obama who decided to stay in Afghanistan and ME who could have puked because of it? So it’s MY fault? Because I voted for the guy? Was Romney the “dove” in that election? I think not.
My advice was to nuke Cabul on 9-18 (one week after) and forget about OBL until he resurfaces. No ground game at all. You don’t respect me because I’m not militant enough, then you don’t respect me because I am TOO militant (by an additional 54 deaths. The number thing again.)
You just can’t make up your mind. Pity.
@George Wells:
I want the U.S. government to acknowledge that there is an actual problem with radical Islam, and not label terrorist attacks on our home soil “workplace violence.” I had this very conversation 40 years ago about the growing threat of radical Islam. It has not gotten any better. So there is the quandary. Do we deal with fundamentalist Islam only on our soil, adopting the isolationist policies of the 1930’s, or do we go after them where ever we find them?
And France, and Great Britain, and Sweden and Holland and our own soil. If Obama was truly a leader, he would be meeting with those nation heads and working out a plan to attack fundamentalist Islam head on. Offense, not defense.
Once again you feel the need to twist what I said to suit your own purposes. Is that what I said? Or did I say that I don’t respect you because, in spite of the deaths of 54 Americans, Obama said “some pretty words about gays at his inauguration speech #2.” For which, in spite of being against the surge, you gave “him a reluctant pass on that one.” As long as he says “pretty words about gays” you will ignore the deaths of American soldiers. THAT is why I have no respect for you, that and your constant attempts to twist my words.
@retire05 #140:
“Or did I say that I don’t respect you because, in spite of the deaths of 54 Americans, Obama said “some pretty words about gays at his inauguration speech #2.” For which, in spite of being against the surge, you gave “him a reluctant pass on that one.” As long as he says “pretty words about gays” you will ignore the deaths of American soldiers. THAT is why I have no respect for you, that and your constant attempts to twist my words.”
Oh, that’s good, because I thought that you didn’t respect me because I was the Devil.
I feel much better now.
I’m going to give you a gift: I will IGNORE ALL the deaths of ALL American soldiers, past, present and future. I’m doing this because dwelling on their tragic loss of life poisons our ability to resolve the issues over which they died without getting all emotionally wrapped up in contemplations of vengeance. I will turn the other Christian cheek and not allow myself to be drawn into making value judgments based upon how many have senselessly died. As I work in my garden, I am ignoring the one, or the 54, or the 2500 or the 11,000,000 who have died fighting tyranny. Hate me for that if you must, but don’t try to make something especially political about the 54 soldiers who died after Obama was inaugurated as if my approval of his inaugural statements about gay rights had anything to do with it. Because it didn’t.
So you wanted Romney to win the 2012 election, right? And how soon was Romney going to get us out of Afghanistan? Those 54 soldiers were going to die either way. In fact, if Obama didn’t have to fight the misconception that all Democrats are weak on national defense, he probably would have extricated our forces from Afghanistan much more quickly than he did. But you didn’t want him out of there at all.
You want “Offense, not defense.” (Your words, not mine.) And on their soil, not ours. You still have the 54 dead Americans that way, with plenty more to come. In fact, your chiding me for seemingly calling for a 1930’s-style isolationism suggests that you really want that WWIII that I keep asking you about. Oh, you DON”T want to start WWIII? Well, just what do you THINK you’re going to start when your uber-funded, multitask-capable military goes on the offensive in the 193 countries that have radical Islamic elements working mischief within their sovereign borders? Don’t say that you DON’T want WWIII and then set a requirement that can lead nowhere else.
Just out of curiosity, in your estimation, how many of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims are radical extremists? 1%? And where are they?
Well, 1% would mean 16 million potential enemy combatants who are NOT organized into a hierarchical structure that can be killed when its head is cut off. So you’d have to kill them all, and somehow do it in a way that doesn’t motivate the other 1.585 billion Muslims to replace them. If you think that you won’t have to kill so many, you just don’t understand Muslim extremists at all. Their religious zeal for death by jihad exceeds any motivation you can muster. Think of the British slaughter in India before that country’s independence in 1947, and multiply it by God knows what.
Your war-mongering is barking up the doomsday tree. If we can’t figure out a way to end this peacefully, we really ARE doomed.
@George Wells:
No surprise. You have already shown that you have little interest in anything that doesn’t involve being homosexual.
News flash, Georgie; it takes BOTH sides to come to a peaceful resolution. The radical Islamists have zero interest in that.
I was not a fan of Romney’s. He’s nothing but a northeastern, liberal squish. But I would have voted for road kill before I voted for a Socialist.
How many stars are in the heavens? You can’t answer how something that never happened worked out.
You cannot say that with certainty. It is purely hypothetical.
I’m not a war-monger. But at least I can recognize an enemy and Islam is an enemy to all Westerners. Like I said before, those Islamists that flew those planes into the Twin Towers were not concerned about the fact that there were homosexuals in those towers. They just want you dead, or subservient. But my guess is you would prefer to live on your knees.
@retire05 #142:
I asked you:
“And how soon was Romney going to get us out of Afghanistan?”
And you answered:
“How many stars are in the heavens? You can’t answer how something that never happened worked out.”
Since you didn’t bother to answer the question truthfully (perhaps because you knew that the truth proved you wrong), I’ll give you the correct answer:
In July 2012, Romney said that he would maintain troop numbers through 2013, then would withdraw them in 2014, as currently scheduled, with the possibility of maintaining troop levels for a longer period if needed.
So you see, those 54 soldiers WERE dead either way. You can’t blame them on Obama’s reelection.
“ It is purely hypothetical.”
No, it’s as certain as rain. The only thing “hypothetical” about it would be if some miracle like the second coming of Christ were to happen on inauguration day. Maybe YOU weren’t certain, but I was certain that there would be no miracles, then or ever.
“I’m not a war-monger.”
“BUT YA ARE, BLANCH!
Look at some of your recent peacenik utterings:
“I hate to break it to you, George, but WWIII has already started.”
“Radical [fundamentalist] Islam is on the march just as it was in the 1600′s and there is nothing, and no one in the ME, left to stop it.”
“We are now in the midst of a very long, if not centuries long, war.”
“We can kick the shit out of them until they scream “uncle”.”
“I’m for kicking the shit out of any of them that start messing with us. How’s that? And if there is collateral damage, so what?”
“News flash, Georgie; it takes BOTH sides to come to a peaceful resolution. The radical Islamists have zero interest in that.”
“Offense, not defense.”
You can’t say that you’re not a war monger, and then argue that the World has no other option but to go to war against Islam.
You’re a war monger.
The shoe fits – wear it with pride.
And while you’re ratcheting up your war machinery, try to lighten up on blaming the Democrats for the whole mess. If you want to prevail against the Muslim threat, keep politics out of it. You will never defeat an enemy with half of the country fighting against you because you blame them for everything.
@George Wells:
And Obama said the first thing he would do was close Gitmo. Hasn’t happened.
Hard to do when Islam itself is political. You could say that in some respects, it is more political than religious. Or that it turns the religious into the political.
As to your half of the country; do you really think radical Islam will be selective, picking out only conservatives, and giving a pass to liberals, when they try to kill us? On that horrible day in New York almost 12 years ago, how many of those who perished in the Twin Towers do you think voted Democrat?
@retire05 #145:
“As to your half of the country; do you really think radical Islam will be selective, picking out only conservatives, and giving a pass to liberals, when they try to kill us? On that horrible day in New York almost 12 years ago, how many of those who perished in the Twin Towers do you think voted Democrat?”
You’ve asked the same question about homosexuals in the World Trade Center on 9-11, and I really cannot guess at what point you’re trying in vain to make. What earthly difference could it possibly make to me, to liberals, to democrats or to homosexuals what the demographic mix of the World Trade Center was on that sad day? Islamic extremists make no distinction based upon the politics of their victims, which is perhaps what you are alluding to, but IF that is your point, why are you bothering to state the obvious?
“If you want to prevail against the Muslim threat, keep politics out of it. You will never defeat an enemy with half of the country fighting against you because you blame them for everything.”
“Hard to do when Islam itself is political.”
Well then, we are indeed screwed. A house divided.
@George Wells:
Because the obvious seems to elude you.
Actually, we are. Or at least until our elected leaders wake up and realize that we are fighting the extension of a centuries old war, admitting that Islam is NOT a religion of piece, but rather a religion of pieces, body pieces.
@retire05:
Well, we seem to have reached agreement, and in doing so we have bored everyone to tears.
Perhaps I’ll run into you again.
Adios!
@George Wells:
“Z z z z z z z z…”