Radical Islam’s mission is clear: destroy America.
It doesn't matter to the terrorists if they succeed in 2010 or 2110, as long as they ultimately triumph.
Comments
Sat, May 18, 2013 - 11:43 PM
Another awsome move backwards by our City officials. Hey I have a great idea, lets [...]
Sat, May 18, 2013 - 11:03 PM
These 24 names were collected in less than 4 hours near Collier Road (almost 1 mile [...]
Sat, May 18, 2013 - 09:52 PM
I do highly agree with the drug test! If almost every other government (or not) job [...]
Fri, May 17, 2013 - 08:44 PM
Tom........wake up to reality, we picked up a bag on our road with about 20 lotto ti [...]
Fri, May 17, 2013 - 06:22 PM
Just gotta clear up one little item in your post. Not all tea party groups are funde [...]
Recent Stories
- Organic vegetables thriving at Honeywood Farm
- Friday, May 17 2013
- Hunt still on for woman missing since July
- Thursday, May 16 2013
- Farmer's Market offers pro cooking demo
- Thursday, May 16 2013
- Matthews visits English race course
- Thursday, May 16 2013
- Neighbors sick of noise from PGP plant
- Thursday, May 16 2013
Archives
So who are we supposed to be attacking? All the Arab countries? With our thinly spread forces?
before you go looking for trouble abroad,look right here ,you can find all you want.how many blacks are converting to the religion of islam?
ready to take care of our selves and defend our selves.
Do not depend on anyone else, especially this goverment.
Learn how to grow your
own food, learn how to shoot a gun to kill meat to eat.
This country is going down hill fast under the
Democrat Rule. They want us all on welfare so we
will always vote for them.
Let's do the math
approximate terrorist spending since 2000 $100,000,000.00 (estimated)
American spending since 2000 $10,000,000,000,000.00
wonder who's winning the war?
Now that we have had the Fort Hood shootings by a radical Islamic major, and the most recent attempt to bring down another aircraft with an explosive device, I wonder if they would like to reconsider the fact that we have an on-going war against terrorism?
Rather than a president we have a presidential sympathizer to the world everywhere except where he should concentrate his responsibility. That is to the people of the United States. Converting the health of the nation to socialism appears to be his priority. Running up the national debt appears to be his priority. Bankrupting the United States of America appears to be his priority. Congress, who has oversight, apparently is blind or don’t care and is just playing a game of follow the leader. Even over the cliff.
Radical Islam has absolutely zero fear of Obama and they will continue attempts of terroristic attacks on America and its people. Eventually they will be successful which may amount to a more destructive attack than that experienced on 9/11. And our president will continue to look upon himself with gratification on another well spoken speech that has no meaning or truth in it.
I resigned as National Security Advisor and have decided to take a job with Fox News as an expert commentator.
And before all you bleeding heart liberals start bashing me, I do realize the implications of that statement. Collateral damage is to be expected. They have no problem causing collateral damage here, do they? You can't make a cake without breaking a few eggs. I'd rather be alive and safe than right.
The way to stop terrorism is not by becoming terrorists ourselves. Although I think that ship may have already sailed.
In 1995 when Clinton was in office two white male terrorists blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. In 1998 more US Embassies were bombed. The Cole got bombed in 2000 while Clinton was in office. It wasn't because of anything but crazy terrorists.
GW Bush was in office when the Twin Towers were taken down, and this was after many prior attempts. Mayor Rudy had all of NYC's emergency communications systems in the buildings that were primary targets! There were other attacks too, like the Pentagon. This had nothing to do with anything but crazy terrorists.
In all of the above, the CIA, FBI, and other Government agencies knew there were potential problems and failed to follow up, act, or communicate.
Flash forward to today. A nut-case gets on an airplane in the Netherlands. He allegedly was sent over here at least in part by terrorists we once had at Gitmo, terrorists who were released while Bush was in office.
We haven't actually won a war since WW II, with the exception of Grenada!
I wonder what the real problem is? Does anyone know what the real problem is, and why we haven't actually won a war since WW II (with the exception of Grenada, which was about like invading Lamar County)? I'm a little concerned where we have been heading over the past 60 years.
Diplomacy is used prior to a war in the effort to prevent a war. The only way to win after the initial diplomacy fails is the destruction of the enemy where the enemy totally accepts defeat and surrenders.
Diplomacy is a civilized action and war is an uncivilized action. When one side wants to take an uncivilized approach to a civilized action, the approach must be met with an uncivilized reaction. War is not a pretty thing and can not be confined to combatants only. Innocent lives will be lost.
In my opinion one of the best examples is Korea. That war is not over. There is only a peace treaty negotiated through diplomacy putting a time-out on an uncivilized action. One of the most dangerous countries in the world today is North Korea. They are building their military and will, in my opinion, want to end the time-out someday. This will be nothing more than a demonstration that implementation of a civilized action to win an uncivilized action will result in a more destructive uncivilized action at a later date.
War is a fight for survival. Unfortunately, in a fight for survival, there must be a winner and a loser. You can not take a break and allow one party to rest and regain momentum. If the intention is something other than winning the fight then the fight should have never been entered into. The fight will require the efforts of all the people; not just from the military of the people.
Regardless, I don't think it all makes much difference now. We are on the doorstep of a war that will make all past wars miniscule and it has already begun. This war is going to affect every living thing on Earth.
You said: "The reason we haven’t won a war since WWII is because of political intervention. The military will bring an enemy to its knees and then political leaders will get involved with attempts to use diplomacy.
"
Can you give specific examples where that happened and names of those who forced us to give up after we had our enemy on their knees?
Let's use our recent ongoing problem with the small percentage of Muslims who are extremists. Specifically when did we have them on their knees, when did we give up, and specifically who forced us to give up?
What year did this happen and who was in charge at that time?
Also when did we have the same happen in Korea, and when did we have the same happen in Vietnam? But most important let's start with the current problem. When did our military have Al-Qaeda on its knees and who stopped us from finishing the job?
Tom
In Korea the fighting ended in 1953 by a signed armistice. It was a used to end the fighting but not the war. It never ended and could resume at any time. We come close to that often.
The United States heavily entered the Viet Nam War in early 1960s with troop strength doubling in 61 and again in 62. Politics just couldn’t keep their nose out of the war and never allowed the military to do their job. Congress responded to the anti-war movement with legislation (Case-Church Amendment) in 1973 that ended all US hostilities in Vietnam. The fall of Saigon in 1975 actually ended the war.
Let’s skip forward to Gulf war I. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US went in and run them out. Again political intervention. General Norman S. said we should push forward and take Bagdad now or we would be back in a few years. We went back.
The United States watched Al-Qaida build over the years. Whenever they made their presence known the US would respond with a Cruise Missile or two. Then they made their presence known in the United States and GW responded with military action. We now have another anti-war movement and political intervention rears its nose. Hell fire: Obama couldn’t even make a decision about troops for months.
Every armed conflict after WWII has been squeezed with political intervention. Including today!
One last thing Tom. Please stop whining about Regan selling the electronics industry to Japan. Any person with any common sense knows that didn’t happen. I despise NAFTA but I also know that Unions had much to do with industry moving overseas.
The Vietnam problem started at the end of WWII. The French refused to allow the people of Vietnam to govern themselves and choose their own form of government. When the French were tossed out and Vietnam migrated toward a communist government, the United States thought we could change the will or momentum of the people. We thought we could shoot, bomb, and even burn them into supporting a democracy. They only wanted to be left alone, and to be able to eat.
The Russians and the Communist Chinese (the people we are pouring money and jobs into now) funded the other side but never openly killed people like we did. We became the bad guys.
The lesson we keep failing to learn is simple. Many people in the world don't want to be like us. It is also impossible to break the will of a entire population unless we are willing to be ruthless and kill and destroy everyone and rule with an iron fist.
It was George Bush Sr. who stopped in Iraq. It was his son who started on Iraq again, but the people who attacked us on 9/11 were a small minority from Saudi Arabia. We weren't even in the correct country if we wanted to stop terrorist training and funding. The terrorists were a small minority of the Muslim population, and virtually none of that small minority was in Iraq.
Let's use some logical thinking. While Saddam was no doubt a bad guy, he kept that county in check with an iron fist. If a son got out of line he killed the whole family, everyone that son loved would die. If the family got out of line, he killed the entire village. That is the only way to control all those tribes.
We come in and assume, despite killing thousands of innocent people with collateral damage, the population is going to all live peacefully and welcome us with open arms.
What we really did is waste the world's sympathy and create hundreds of new terrorists who hate us. Most of us would react exactly the same way if a foreign government came over here and imposed their will on us while killing hundreds of thousands of innocents along with a smaller number of real bad guys.
Remember Bin Laden, who was trained by our own CIA? 9/11 caused us to react exactly the way Bin Laden predicted we would. We struck out and smashed a country to pieces when the people who really attacked us were a small minority, mostly from Saudi Arabia. Of course the elite Saudis are business partners of the Bush family, so it is understandable we would not want to invade Saudi Arabia. We became Bin Laden's best recruiting tool. With almost no investment at all he caused us to spend trillions and forever changed our lives. Instead of finding him and killing him, we starting smashing people who had nothing to do with 9/11.
As for Reagan, what I say is factual. Regan pressured the US Customs to not enforce trade laws. He pressured the Supreme Court to not enforce antitrust laws. As soon as he left office, Reagan received $2 million dollars for a speech to the consumer electronics cartel that was dumping consumer goods in the USA.
All of this is documented fact. Look at civil action 80-5-00861 in US Customs Court and onward through the 70's.
In fairness it wasn't and isn't just Reagan who sells our jobs to foreigners, he just happened to be a little more bold about it. He was ultimately responsible for the loss of our consumer electronics industry to the Japanese.
The Japanese now, if I'm not mistaken, now hold the largest share of our foreign debt.
The Vietnam problem started at the end of WWII. The French refused to allow the people of Vietnam to govern themselves and choose their own form of government. When the French were tossed out and Vietnam migrated toward a communist government, the United States thought we could change the will or momentum of the people. We thought we could shoot, bomb, and even burn them into supporting a democracy. They only wanted to be left alone, and to be able to eat.
The Russians and the Communist Chinese (the people we are pouring money and jobs into now) funded the other side but never openly killed people like we did. We became the bad guys.
The lesson we keep failing to learn is simple. Many people in the world don't want to be like us. It is also impossible to break the will of a entire population unless we are willing to be ruthless and kill and destroy everyone and rule with an iron fist.
It was George Bush Sr. who stopped in Iraq. It was his son who started on Iraq again, but the people who attacked us on 9/11 were a small minority from Saudi Arabia. We weren't even in the correct country if we wanted to stop terrorist training and funding. The terrorists were a small minority of the Muslim population, and virtually none of that small minority was in Iraq.
Let's use some logical thinking. While Saddam was no doubt a bad guy, he kept that county in check with an iron fist. If a son got out of line he killed the whole family, everyone that son loved would die. If the family got out of line, he killed the entire village. That is the only way to control all those tribes.
We come in and assume, despite killing thousands of innocent people with collateral damage, the population is going to all live peacefully and welcome us with open arms.
What we really did is waste the world's sympathy and create hundreds of new terrorists who hate us. Most of us would react exactly the same way if a foreign government came over here and imposed their will on us while killing hundreds of thousands of innocents along with a smaller number of real bad guys.
Remember Bin Laden, who was trained by our own CIA? 9/11 caused us to react exactly the way Bin Laden predicted we would. We struck out and smashed a country to pieces when the people who really attacked us were a small minority, mostly from Saudi Arabia. Of course the elite Saudis are business partners of the Bush family, so it is understandable we would not want to invade Saudi Arabia. We became Bin Laden's best recruiting tool. With almost no investment at all he caused us to spend trillions and forever changed our lives. Instead of finding him and killing him, we starting smashing people who had nothing to do with 9/11.
As for Reagan, what I say is factual. Regan pressured the US Customs to not enforce trade laws. He pressured the Supreme Court to not enforce antitrust laws. As soon as he left office, Reagan received $2 million dollars for a speech to the consumer electronics cartel that was dumping consumer goods in the USA.
All of this is documented fact. That's the nice thing about public documents. Look at civil action 80-5-00861 in US Customs Court.
In fairness it wasn't and isn't just Reagan who sells or sold our jobs to foreigners, he just happened to be a little more bold about it. He was ultimately responsible for the loss of our consumer electronics industry to the Japanese.
The Japanese now, if I'm not mistaken, now hold the largest share of our foreign debt.
Every armed conflict has been filled with political intervention.
Regarding Gulf War I and II - there's so much that you don't know about those wars.
How true!
By: Mitchell Bard
The naked politicization of the attempted attack has been both shameful and hypocritical. (Can you imagine what these same Republicans, from Dick Cheney to members of Congress, would have done if Democrats criticized George W. Bush and sent out fund-raising mailers after 9/11?) As angry as the GOP response should make any American, what is even more important is that the Republicans are making us less safe.
It's as if the Republicans don't understand why fanatics use terrorism (something Bush definitely didn't seem to get after 9/11). The Islamic fundamentalists who wish us harm do not have the firepower to prevail against the power of the United States. But what they can do is try and unsettle us, so that we will hurt ourselves. When al-Qaeda leadership put together the 9/11 plot, there was no danger that the 19 terrorists who hijacked the four planes would defeat the United States military. But by perpetuating the tragedy, the goal was to unsettle Americans and the U.S. government, so that we would ourselves do the damage al-Qaeda didn't have the power to inflict.
And, sadly, the Bush administration played right into the terrorists' hands. It overreacted, plunging the country into an unrelated, unnecessary, draining war in Iraq. More importantly, Bush and his cronies attacked the very aspects of the U.S. that al-Qaeda could never touch: our freedoms and democratic principals. From the Patriot Act to illegal wiretapping to torture to holding people without charge, the president took an axe to the very freedoms that he said was the reason the terrorists hated us. Osama bin Laden himself could not have better choreographed what the Bush administration did after 9/11. And look at how the rest of the decade unfolded. Bush's missteps left our military stretched and more vulnerable than it had been in more than 50 years, and our surpluses had turned to deficits, all while our reputation and ability to influence the rest of the world slipped.
So here we are, a little more than eight years after 9/11. A Nigerian terrorist manages to get some chemical explosives onto a plane, but thanks to the bravery of some passengers and the limited capability of the attacker, the terrorist was unsuccessful. And, again, the Republicans play right into the terrorists' hands, engaging in a "collective display of pants-wetting," exactly what the terrorists want us to do.
Luckily, Barack Obama is not George W. Bush. As Obama's top counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, noted on Meet the Press on Sunday, charges from the likes of Cheney that Obama has not been active fighting terrorism are flat-out wrong. Obama understands that the way to beat al-Qaeda is to aggressively fight them, but also not to allow them to unsettle the United States, which is the terrorists' goal.
Clearly, after the disaster of the Bush presidency, Republicans have not paid any attention to history.
This is why terrorists are recruited. And more will come. To them, we are the enemy. And those that wish to use more force, will receive more in return.