Paxil….

“I can’t get left!”

No really, I can’t.

But most importantly as you pointed out, he understood the evil we faced, he never doubted the war was just and right (unlike many in our country today) and he saved many lives. I also believe he could have done more if he hadn’t been held back by the politicos, which brings me to some of the points I made in my post, politicians, the PC crowd, etc. don’t and shouldn’t mix with wars, not until the bullets stop flying…period!

Now that I’ve established that we are not the aggressor here, and that our goal is not the same as the Third Reich, I’d like to point out how I believe you are confusing the actions we as a nation have already undertaken and/or the actions other people on this blog would like to see our nation take against our enemies, which in my interpretation DOES NOT equate our people or nation with being like the Third Reich.

As for Patton, don’t use George’s name in the same sentence with Bradky: Patton was a Civilized Warrior, restrained but focused ( yes I said restrained ), and understood what it took to defeat an enemy whose essential motive was evil.

He was vain and arrogant and everything else they called him, but he was a genius at what needed to be done–and having him on our side saved thousands of lives

I’d also like to address some of Bradky’s many postings, yes Bradky, this is one long diatribe, not numerous short ones. I realize that some of the words used by some of the other posters here may seem a bit harsh to you Bradky, but I disagree with some of your interpretations and analogies on what is being communicated by them.

In regard to Bradky’s post:

Wishing for our country to become something very different such as a Fourth Reich with its final solutions is no better than the imagined legions of liberals you think are ready to turn the country over to extremists.

Get back to your freshman comp class– it is pretty clear where you are coming from. When the glorious apocalypse comes to validate your hopes and dreams you and Tim may be disappointed it didn’t turn out like your movie type fantasies. Heck you and him may be fighting over the last child bearing woman on the continent – Rosie.

First of all, making the comparison of our nation protecting our freedoms and county from Islamic Fascism to the Third (or Fourth) Reich is way off base, there is no comparison. We didn’t ask for this war, this war with fascist Islam has been brewing for as long as I can remember (I’m 44) despite all the years of negotiation and appeasement with fascist Islam and culminated in the 9-11 attacks against our nation that killed 3,000 innocent non-military civilians. Our goal is not to rule the world with a “supreme race” as was Hitler and the Third Reich’s goal, we are merely protecting ourselves from an enemy whose goal is world domination in which all peoples and nations are submissive to the Caliphate of Islam under their strict and brutal Shari religious law.

Now that I’ve established that we are not the aggressor here, and that our goal is not the same as the Third Reich, I’d like to point out how I believe you are confusing the actions we as a nation have already undertaken and/or the actions other people on this blog would like to see our nation take against our enemies, which in my interpretation equates our people or nation with being like the Third Reich.

When a nation makes the difficult decision to go to war it must be with the absolute goal and conviction of defeating their enemy with all means at their disposal until the enemy has unconditionally surrendered. War is not something you do half-assed, going to war with anything less than the full conviction of being victorious is a recipe for disaster and defeat.

With that said in order to be victorious against your enemy you must put aside politics, political correctness, appeasement, diplomacy, and negotiation until your enemy has capitulated and has unconditionally surrendered. Only once complete victory is achieved is it time for the politicians to step in to conduct diplomacy and negotiation, until then the politicians need to stay out of the way and not tie our military’s hands!

However, in order to come to this latter stage one must defeat its enemy, and in war that can only be achieved by force, which means people will die, including civilians, war is not PC, it is hell.

Bradky also made the comment:

Long winded diatribes still don’t justify the calls for killing 100 people in order to get the twenty bad ones. If you are more comfortable with a Nazi government that shares similar principles to the Jihadists at least be honest and admit that is what you want America to become.

Although this may offend Bradky’s sensibilities and sound harsh, my answer to his question if it’s justified to kill 100 people to get 20 bad ones is “yes!” Bradky, you need to learn that PC has no place in war, again, war is hell, and people die! Also, in war it is sometimes necessary to make such difficult decisions especially when your enemy is conducting a guerilla war, where they have no defined uniform, flag, etc. that readily identifies or distinguishes them as the enemy. What you fail to ask yourself is why is it our military must make such a difficult decision, to kill 100 civilians in order to kill 20 of the enemy? Here’s why, our enemy thinks nothing of conducting its military operations within the civilian population, inside of Mosques, schools, homes, etc. If you want to paint someone as the Third, Fourth, of Fifth Reich then perhaps you may want to start painting our enemies with that brush of yours because the responsibility for placing civilians in harms way rests squarely on their shoulders!

Also, what do you recommend our soldiers do Bradky, should our brave soldiers simply throw down their weapons and be slaughtered because our enemy conducts its operations like cowards hiding behind women and children? Doing so plays right into their hands and is a sure path to defeat, the enemy knows this and takes full advantage of the situation at the expense and blood of innocent civilians and our brave soldiers. I would also like to note here that some of these “innocent civilians” aren’t always as innocent as the enemy would like you or us to think, the enemy never likes its adversary to know how many of their troops were killed, in addition, some of these “innocent civilians” are more than happy to assist them since they adhere to the same fascist ideology, therefore in a state of war they cannot be considered civilians, but must be viewed and dealt with as enemy combatants. It’s a catch 22, damned if we do and damned if we don’t, if we attack and kill our enemy along with innocent civilians, then they use it as propaganda against us, “look at the bloodthirsty Americans, they kill innocent people, they are the true terrorists!” If we don’t attack, then our soldiers die, then troop moral plummets because we have no chance for victor when our military leaders have their hands tied behind our backs. Next thing you know the dems are calling for “cut-and-run” we’ve been defeated, the enemy is emboldened, and they hit us again, only harder next time! So if it’s a choice between defeat and our soldiers dying needlessly or defeating our enemy by any means, then I say take them out.

Keep in mind Bradky, despite how brutal these types of judgments and mentality are, they are not equal to what the Third Reich was all about, as our goal is not to rule the world with a supreme race through genocide as was the Third Reich’s goal, rather, these types of judgments and mentality are a necessary part of war that are required in order to defeat a fascist ideological enemy that has declared war against us, plain and simple!

According to your logic Bradky, when Patton gave his famous pep-talk to his troops before joining the fight in WWI when he said, “we’re going to kill those Hun bastards by the bushel, we’re going to wade through them like sh** through a goose” then he too was equivalent to the Third Reich? No, he wasn’t, anymore than myself or the others posting on this blog. Patton was merely being realistic and preparing his men for victory by doing what he knew had to be done, and as he so eloquently put it, “no one ever won a war by dying for his country, you win wars by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country”

I’m just thankful that we had people like General George Patton during WWII to fight the Germans, I know he wouldn’t hesitate for a minute to blow up a church, Mosque, or home into little pieces if it were being used to launch attacks against his troops, regardless of the potential for civilian casualties! If Patton were forced to fight WWII like the dems, PC crowd, peaceniks, and pacifists want us to fight this current war we’d all be slave laborers to Nazism or Imperialist Japan right now! In fact, if our politicians and the PC crowd would just get out of the way and allow the military to do its job and take out the enemy regardless of where they are operating from I can almost guarantee that after the first several “gloves off” assaults our enemy will come to realize we really mean business and there is no longer any safe haven for them. Doing so will force our enemy into the open as the truly innocent civilian population will see we aren’t playing their game anymore and won’t want our enemy within a 100 yards of their homes, Mosques, or anywhere where they will be caught in the middle!

One last thing, I can guarantee you that if Bradky were to make some of his comments to Patton during WWII he would have become the second soldier to be slapped by Patton!

One last thing, I can guarantee you that if Bradky were to make some of his comments to Patton during WWII he would have become the second soldier to be slapped by Patton!

Ah calling someone a moron and pathetic negates the obvious bloodlust. Back to the Mad Max movies are we Freelancer?

Bradky on April 24, 2007 at 1:02 PM

But it is okay when you do it? Typical lefty. Hypocrisy is your thing, and you did it so well. please. keep talking people need to see you for what you are.

Tony737 on April 24, 2007 at 9:17 PM

I am glad that you are only serving crackers and peanuts to customers at 30 thousand feet instead of being responsible for the complicated decisions made in the running of our country. Your logic is that we need to become the fourth reich before they form their own?

Janos Hunyadi on April 25, 2007 at 2:40 AM

It is always entertaining to see zealots like you who would like nothing better to see the country fall to the Jihadists so that you could roam around playing “uber patriot”.

But you would likely be cowering under a pig sty somewhere begging for help. Maybe you would throw a keyboard or two at the attackers in your final moments.

Wishing for our country to become something very different such as a Fourth Reich with its final solutions is no better than the imagined legions of liberals you think are ready to turn the country over to extremists.

Get back to your freshman comp class– it is pretty clear where you are coming from. When the glorious apocalypse comes to validate your hopes and dreams you and Tim may be disappointed it didn’t turn out like your movie type fantasies. Heck you and him may be fighting over the last child bearing woman on the continent – Rosie.

civilization is “sympathetic, merciful, tolerant, ready to discuss or argue, eager to avoid violence, to submit to law, to effect compromise.”

“Radical Islam derives from Islam but is an anti-modern, millenarian, misanthropic, misogynist, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, triumphalist, jihadistic, terroristic, and suicidal version of it. It is Islamic-flavored totalitarianism.”

So the problem is a certain kind of flavour of totalitarianism – i.e. a deviant form of Islam? Hold on. Islam, as Robert Spencer and others have painstakingly shown, has since its inception made no distinction between religion and ideology (or the state); all the seeds of violence exist within the Qura’n and other holy books (hadith and sira), with the world sharply divided into the dar el islam (house of submission) and dar el harb (house of war). Muhammad himself set off the first jihad (holy war, not some form of yoga) 1400 years ago. Why is Pipes saying that the problem is not Islam as a religion but radical, ideological Islam? Its a false distinction.

Calling it “radical” Islam is misleading. Since that implies there is a genuine “moderate” Islam. In truth there may be moderate Muslims that do not adhere to Islam’s inherent ideology. But they are considered my millions of Muslims around the world as unworthy Muslims, even apostates (defectors). Calling the problem “fundamentalist” Islam is also perhaps misleading. Since that implies there might be a “non-fundamentalist” Islam. As if it were possible to ignore the core tenets of Islamic doctrine as well as its violent blood letting history. If Islamic reformers were able to develop a strand of the so-called religion that confronted (not ignored) and rejected much of Islam’s misogyny, homophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance, then we might be able to say there is also a moderate or non-fundamental Islam. Perhaps better put, only if Islam can throw off the ideological yoke, and in doctrine and practise be a religion without political aspirations, may we can begin to think there might be hope to reconcile Islam as a religion within our societies. Such hope is faint.

a well-known song Am Yisrael Hai (Israel Lives).

Tim Burton on April 25, 2007 at 1:52 AM

You’ve discovered the multi-leveled secret of Bradky: no mention or knowledge of history beyond pop culture, the opposite of ‘higher intellect’, ad hominem and straw man arguments ( the favorite crutch of weak and lazy minds ) and relentless mis-representation of everyone and everything he cannot uderstand or doesn’t agree with

he DOES have moral outrage, but it is unfocused: sprayed like a spit-take onto various targets with no clue as to what others are actually saying to him

For dimwits like him, intelligent people who argue intelligently are speaking in a code which he cannot break

I wouldn’t call him and those like him ( they are legion ) a hypocrite, because he does not have enough principle to violate his own principles.

irony: if the jihadis every take over here, fools like him will be among the first to be beheaded

When the day comes that our country eliminates fails to protect people based on religion our country is not the country that we know. We become no better than those who wish us dead.

Bradky on April 23, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Fixed!

Seeing how we don’t want to protect Americans due to our “religious sensativity”, we no longer are the country we were founded upon.

And war based on Religion does has roots with our Founding Fathers. Jefferson decided to kick the arses of Musliim nations for their acts of war. He justified the attacks based upon their acts were of a religious doctrine.

Finally, you are such an utter hypocrite to not want us to focus on destroying someone whose religion calls for the oppression and murder of those of other religions, yet ignore the religion that in the last couple of years have managed to kill 2.5 million Christians, Buddists and Hindus.

Your lack of moral outrage…Hell, your lack of morality is telling. I wonder if you would be so offended and defensive against destruction/conversion if you replaced Islam with Nazism…

“Now LISTEN! And understand … those terrorists are out there, they can’t be bargained with, they can’t be reasoned with, they don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and they absolutely will not stop … EVER … until you are dead.

How bad are the bad ones? If they are planning a terror attack on an American city, I am just fine with taking out 100 innocents to get 20 guilty.

Have they not learned from history (the rise of Nazism, Japan’s non-secular Shinto based government, just to name a couple) the peril we currently face when it comes to radical Islamo-facsist? Those who forget their past are doomed to repeat it. All these cries of “diplomacy” and “negotiation” or “appeasement” are for not and only weaken and divide us, and a divided nation is much easier to conquer!

There is no negotiating with a fanatical ideology, history is full of examples of its futility, trying to negotiate is moot as it is akin to trying to negotiate with the cyborg from the Terminator movie…it feels no remorse, it feels no pain, it feels no emotion, its only goal is to kill you!

Our enemy revels in the fact we consistently try to appease them for several reasons; it allows them to buy time to re-arm, re-fund, and plot their next wave of murderous terror, and it emboldens them as “appeasment” and “negotiation” accomplishes nothing except to make us look weak and afraid in their eyes (thank you Reid and Pelosi!) while all the time laughing at how our own people and other nations are playing into their propaganda!

Appeasment is merely fear disguised as peace, a true and lasting peace cannot be sustained if it is based upon appeasement to a radical ideology whose goal is not true freedom, but whose true goal is to destroy anyone or any nation that doesn’t convert to their fanatical religous ideology as they have interpreted it!

Wake up and smell the burning books, movies, and music for where they burn the above, soon they burn bodies! I hope and pray it will not take a mushroom or chemical/radiological cloud over a city killing hundreds of thousands of people before the rest of the world wakes up!

Tony737 on April 24, 2007 at 9:53 AM

Your answer as requested

If they nuke Europe will we finally be willing to destroy this vile religion? After all during the Cold War, we decided if the USSR let loose a nuke, we were going to utterly destroy them…

Tim Burton on April 23, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Freelancer on April 24, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Ah calling someone a moron and pathetic negates the obvious bloodlust. Back to the Mad Max movies are we Freelancer?

And immediately I’ll violate that advice…

The weakness in your argument is that there is not a specific state that claims ownership of Al Qaida. Pretty it up any way you like but it still comes down to a desire to kill based upon a person’s religion. Considering that is the basis upon which “they” want to kill us, by extension your desire makes you the same as “them”.

An invalid presumption, wholly without logical merit, Bradky. It isn’t based upon their religion that they have become an enemy, but based on their ACTIONS, which intend to destroy anyone not viewed acceptable to themselves. You have an intellect, do not play the moron of inverting who is fomenting evil and who is defending good with such a pathetic argument.

No bombing necessary.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see anybody say “Let’s kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.”

Janos Hunyadi on April 24, 2007 at 2:32 AM

Ad Hominem, Straw man…. are you a college freshman or sophomore? You are beginning to sound like one.

Long winded diatribes still don’t justify the calls for killing 100 people in order to get the twenty bad ones. If you are more comfortable with a Nazi government that shares similar principles to the Jihadists at least be honest and admit that is what you want America to become.

As was said above, the “vermin”, or sewer rats, as I like to call them, need a place to form up.

And once our last remaining ally of consequence is destroyed, they come for us.

SUN TZU 101.

As you want to use percentages ( strange, but I’m up for it ) “Decision-makers” and Acual Active Terrorists are maybe one percent.

try this: long, but not a bad read

Islam today should not be compared to Christianity a thousand years ago. In addition to being unfair, it is also intellectually less-than-honest. …this particular comparison is often made in the “MainStream Media”.

The Gulf War and the current Iraq War ( OIF, or ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom ) are not the Crusades. The Catholic Church of a thousand years ago is Long Gone: It no longer has any governmental authority: It can no longer tax anyone, or drag anyone into its courts to judge and punish anyone.

Some People who do not want to confront Islamic fanaticism throw up the ‘straw man argument’ of saying that Islamic fanaticism is the same or no worse than Christian fanaticism, and then mumble something about events from the Holy Inquisition ( five hundred years ago ) or the Crusades ( eight to nine hundred years ago)

They try to create a ‘moral equivalence’ between 9 / 11 and the dozen or so people who have been killed in the past two decades from the bombing of abortion clinics or other incidents, for example. They say or clearly imply that the “Religious Right” is no different from al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden

This is rhetoric: ‘rhetoric’ is defined as “persuasive speech”, and is usually understood to be anything said or written with the sole or primary purpose of persuading people. Rhetoric is often called “mere rhetoric” because it is by nature exaggerated or false or deliberately misleading.

Rhetoric can contain truths, but truth is only incidental, as rhetoric is meant to persuade and not to teach or enlighten

You can gain insights from comparing one current society to another, and also benefit from comparing the past to the present. Both types of comparison need to be carefully done, though, and accurate information is crucial to avoid misleading generalizations.

It is valid to compare what Islamic fanatics are doing TODAY with whatever ‘activist’s Christians are doing TODAY. Which group presents more of a threat?

It is also valid to compare the Roman Catholic Church today and the Church five hundred or eight hundred or a thousand years ago–but anyone who does so and does not see profound change is either delusional or simply engaging in ‘rhetoric’ ( they are lying ).

Understanding the nature of medieval Catholic spirituality will help you understand how those people lived and understand the art they produced, including the Gothic cathedrals. It will also help you better understand the nature of Islamic fanaticism. People who believe that they know God and communicate with God–and that only they know God — are very dangerous when there are a lot of such people, and when they have control of governments and armies and are willing to use violence on a systematic basis.

However much any of you resent the attempts of modern Christians to limit your personal freedoms, your chances of ever being harmed by an Angry Christian are less than your chances of being struck by lightening. Modern Christianity may be annoying to you, but it poses no real threat to your life and freedom and health.

Modern Islam–modern Islamic fanatics and their “jihad’ –is obviously different. I won’t tell anyone how or what to think. Check into it, and draw your own conclusions. Maybe we can reason with them–find common ground……..