Okay, people.

[Gabe]

"America is great because she is good. When she stops being good, she will cease being great."

----- Unknown


Never forget who WE are. Let this be our finest hour.

[biganimal]

longpath
if i knew the perps were being protected in "hamburg" as they are in afganastan then yes to bombing said city. he who harbors the guilty is guilty also..nuff said

[LoneStranger]

Over the years I have always had fun, when discussing defense policys, of asking a simple question. Which War Are You Planning On Fighting? Usually people don't like me after I ask it and the following questions. But, What the Hay!! They usually don't like me anyway.
When you start talking War you really are getting into an area where you had better know what you are asking for or you will make many mistakes that will cause you to lose. If not losing the contest then losing that which you started out fighting for.
It's easy to demand immediate violent action against someone or something cause its so soothing to the soul and emotions. Unfortunately, in most cases it leads to further bad things and greater damage to the soul and emotions.
For the people of this nation we have to maintain an adherence to our written laws for only there are we superior to these terrorist and only there will we defeat them. I've read that a number of great military leaders have always claimed that it is not only the strength of your right arm but the strength of your ideals which win the war. In my limited knowledge I cannot disagree.

[Seeker]

if i knew the perps were being protected in "hamburg" as they are in afganastan then yes to bombing said city. he who harbors the guilty is guilty also..nuff said

By being protected you mean that if Joe and Sally Terrorist provide a safe house in Any City, that the entire city should be put to the torch?

If Joe Mayor puts up terrorists in his private house without the knowledge of his staff or the citizens, then the entire city should be bombed?

So the poor saps in Afganastan that live in daily fear of The Ministry of Virtue and Vice should be blasted out of existance becuase the rulers support, to one degree or another?

Is that reasonable?

[Kaylee]

well, if we insist on the wholesale destruction of anyone and everyone who helped them, then we'll have to start bombing some US cities ourselves... they trained in Florida, afterall.

-K

[Goet]

Can we take out Palm Beach?

[clem]

The only mistake America made by dropping atomic bombs on Nagasaki & Hiroshima was that the bombs should of been bigger.

Think I'm wrong, ask a Bataan death march survivor or ask the crew of the U.S.S. Arizona.

Clem
USMC Retired

[TMoney]

I would be feeling pretty dizzy about now. I've been reading all these posts and I am impressed with the number of reasoned lucid and convincing arguments from a bunch of 'gun-nuts'. I'm afraid I fall way short of most of the folks here in my literary and debating skills; I only know what I think.

I think that we need to pounce hard (after determining the origins of this cell), but with as little collateral damage as possible. I don't want non-combatants hurt any more than anyone else, even though it will happen.
I believe the key to eradication is to take out the support structure, which would mean the money it takes to run this kind of operation, and the commanding staff and inspirations.
Reduce their military to rubble, and shut down their borders.(period) No trade, no food, no nothing. This may entail 'encouraging' a couple of other Islamic countries to lend a hand.

Now one other thing, they brought this war to us, but I am not willing to wage the entire war on MY HOME TURF; my family and friends could get hurt, along with the prettiest women in the universe. We have to take it to them and separate the 'cells' here from the blood supply over there.

I'm no military student and I don't claim to know much about religion, but I do believe that these bung-bangers look forward to dying for their cause; we have to make them think they won't go to 'heaven?' if they die; make them afraid to die. I don't know how, do any of my friends here on TFL? I'd love to do my part.

One last note: I read one time that an enemy is not defeated until his ability to retaliate is gone. (Louis L'Amour)
Friends, we cannot tap dance around on this issue.

[capnrik]

Monkeyleg said:

If he does anything less, Bush will be denounced as a weak leader. If he does anything more, his opposition will raise the issue of executions in Texas under his governorship as additional proof that he is bloodthirsty.

So what are our thoughts 3 years later?

Mods, would this be more appropriate in Legal and Political?

[JohnKSa]

Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen.

The goal of punishment is the preservation of the principles of society--NOT retribution.

The same principle applies here. The magnitude of the crime should be largely irrelevant in determining the level of punishment. Instead, one should consider how desirable it is to prevent future similar crimes. The punishment must be severe enough to be a credible deterrent or it's a waste of time.

[Majic]

There are many, many names on a wall in Washington, D.C. because of our righteous atitude. The fact is in the enemy will not always be clad in uniforms for easy reconition. He who seems to be a friend during the day may cut your throat when darkness falls.
Conventional warfare only works when the enemy also fights in the conventional manner. There is truth in "when in Rome do as the Romans do".

[LawDog]

The silence, even from our OWN Islamic population, has been VAST.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=151741

See post #24 in that thread:

I don't know what irritates me more: 1)That this question gets asked, for instance over at THR, at which time someone (like Marko Kloos) digs up a wagon-load of links to published condemnations from Muslims, and next thing I know the questions gets asked again; or

2)That the person asking this question (yet again) can't find www.google.com or www.teoma.com, can't input 'muslim' + 'terror' + 'condemnation', and/or can't read the outpourings of Muslim condemnations for themselves.

So. In the interests of answering the damned question AGAIN, I went to www.google.com, input 'muslim condemnation of terrorism' and got 47,400 hits. Some of which (yet again) I herein post for general enlightenment.

9/11 condemnations:
http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html
http://www.al-islam.org/dilp_statement.html
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

Russian school takeover:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...31595D1A4F5.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3628836.stm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inte...1297664,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...s.ap/index.html

Nicholas Berg:
http://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblo...llah/008824.php
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=30274
http://www.islam-online.net/English...article08.shtml
http://www.islamonline.net/English/...article03.shtml

Here are the "outpouring of condemnation for these terrorist attacks from all of the peaceful Muslims".

I trust this fully and completely answers the question, and I further trust that this question need not be asked here, or at THR, again.

LawDog

Also, see post #41 in the same thread.

The statement that Islam has failed to condemn terror is false, and TFL will not be used to further promote this base canard.

Closed.

LawDog