When will people stop being so tolerant of terrorists? When will liberals and socialists stop catering to this worthless scum? When will liberals and socialists stop bashing the countries that are fighting against terrorism? Innocent people killed - women, men, children, Muslims, Christians, atheists - innocent people.As a starter I'd implement the following (should have been done long ago):
- Track owners of terrorist websites - shut down the sites as well as the hosting site, follow the money (who paid for the site, who is hosting)
- Round up known terrorist cell members (there were several under surveillance in London) and execute them. Track back their documents and arrest or execute those that have knowingly helped this scum
- Nuke the capital cities of countries that have known terrorist support - Iran, N. Korea, Syria. I'd be willing to bet terrorist activities would then slow down if not stop totally
17 comments:
Yeah, nuclear weapons are a great idea. That won't lead to escalation, environmental damage or the deaths of millions of innocents at all, will it?
That won't lead to escalation - gee, let's not irritate the terrorists.
God I get so tired of these wimps and kiss-ass socialists, especially the anonymous ones.
Terrorism will escalate on its own without any help from us until we root out the problem, and this cannot be done while we are distracted trying to pull out the knives that sanctimonious liberal fools stick in our backs. It needs to be very clear to the entire world that we will fight to defend our civilization.
Van Helsing
Moonbattery
Thank you Van Helsing for that intelligent comment. Although the evil among us seem to cature the attention of the media I still believe the good people greatly out number the evil.
When will people stop being so tolerant of terrorists? When will liberals and socialists stop catering to this worthless scum?
England tolerant of terrorists? Blair is Bush's staunchest ally. England has committed more troops to Iraq than any other nation, except the US. Blair & Bush aren't catering to terrorism at all, yet London is the scene of the attack.
It was not directed toward England - read the post. It was directed toward people like you and all your self-proclaiming socialists, toward liberals as well as global groups that rather bash this great country instead of bashing terrorists.
You are right - Blair and Bush do not cater to terrorists - a strong reason for the attack. In your world we should pacify terrorists instead of exterminate them. Get the picture now?
who the enemy really is - hmm, let's see - how about someone strapping on explosives or placing them in hidden locations to kill innocent people? Think that would be a good start.
You left out the fact that Osama bitch Laden was exiled from Saudi Arabia. If anything, the Saudi King has his days numbered - he is a sure target of the radicals and can not trust his own "security" forces.
The "war on terror" is not limited to Iraq - it is a global war. Weak nations like France, Spain, and Germany choose to take money in exchange for joining in removing this scum. If the bombers in Iraq were no longer doing thier thing I'm sure the forces there would be out ASAP. But a key issue drags the killing of these (non-Iraq terrorists) from taking place in a timely manner - the embedded media. The soldiers are not able to do what needs to be done without the fear of being the next headline story at CBS or CNN. How would you like a 3rd party hovering over you when you work - watching, filming, waiting for you to do something questionable? From that comes the feeding frenzy of liberals, socialists, global idiots like Amnesty International - all caught and reported around the world - all weakening those that are trying to do what can be done.
Should the USA elect a liberal president that succumbs to polls and public pressure - especially global pressure - the bombings will happen here. I don't like allot of things about Bush and how he handles many things but at least he is doing something - unlike the Clinton years where terrorists were able to train on our own soil.
I don't think killing terrorist should be a political or patriotic event - yet many have turned it into such, even if it means the bashing of our own country in an attempt to gain something political.
Actually, the group claiming responsibility for this says that they have struck because of England's involvement in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan...so yes, it is a strike against Britain...and by default, of course, against the ever dreadful United States of America.
I have felt all along, that as long as we have imbedded rot in our midst, we will only fuel more terrorist attacks. The terrorist groups are emboldened by the socialist classes in North America and Europe, knowing that they have support for their atrocities, and worse, knowing that we in the Western world will continue to involve ourselves in our internecine rhetorical wars,whilst enfeebling our collective will to stop them. Are they vicious murderers..or the victims of American imperialism? Are they barbaric fundamentalists whose only goal is to eradicate all cultures that oppose them...or are they "minutemen?...freedom fighters? and on and on we go. Attacking each other, while we should be concentrating our attention on those who will annhiliate us without the slightest turn of conscience..never mind an ideological debate. Ever see the Berg beheading? Gives you an idea what we are up against.
Read an excellent piece today, by John Thompson http://moonbatcentral.com/wordpress/?p=643
which touches on the left's abhorrence of heirarchy. Something we have discussed.. And as he says:
"And when Senator Kennedy pronounced that Abu Ghraib had “reopened under new management,” he clearly intended to convey that there is no way to distinguish the despicable actions of rogue prison guards from the systematic genocide of Saddam Hussein. Against such a backdrop, is it really difficult to understand why so few expressions of solidarity and empathy for the victims of September 11 issued from bastions of the cultural left? For over three decades, that movement’s center of gravity has unfalteringly declared America to be synonymous with an unending series of crimes and depredations against humanity. "
And therein lies the power of terrorism and the failure of the Western world to successfully and swiftly react.
Evil invariably triumphs over Good in the short run, because of Good's refusal to embrace the way of Evil. However, at least historically, Good has more staying power...
Cat
Pundit makes some excellent points!
May I assume, given your certitude, and the vitriolic hate you serve up to all who disagree with you, that you must be a so-called 'christian'?
I don't know who you're making your accusations against (cowardly anonymous) but Chirstians are not the ones straping explosive devices to themselves are they? I really get tired of these fanatical dip-shits with no brains that attack Christians as if they are the enemy.
As for me? Heck - I haven't stepped foot in a church in decades. So much for your vain attempt to catagorize me or label me. Come out from behind your wimpy anonymous label coward. What do you really fear?
One doesn't need to be a Christian to know the difference between right and wrong. One doesn't have to be a Republican to know the difference between good and evil. It is not hate but a rational mind that knows those that kill innocent people with weapons of mass destruction need to be tracked down and killed - before they kill again. Yes, I classify WMDs as any weapon that can kill more than 1 person at a time. Perhaps you have a greater upper limit - sad that there are sorry worthless jerks like you that exist. Not hate - just reality.
I guess it's not only the socialists and liberals that have problems with the policies of Bush & Blair. Writing in today's Counterpunch, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration Paul Craig Roberts writes, "Why do Americans think it is heroic and honorable for our troops to massacre Iraqis with bombs, missiles, gunships, tanks, and heavy machine guns, but cowardly and barbaric when our victims fight back in the only way they can?
The US and Britain started this fight, not Iraq. We should be ashamed that Bush and Blair deceived us, tricked us into a pointless and unjust war, and that innocent people on both sides are paying with their lives and limbs for Bush's and Blair's lies. Our real anger should be directed at Bush and Blair who are responsible for the deaths and destruction."
BTW, each person who has a blog on Blogger can choose whether or not to allow anonymous comments. The host of this blog has chosen to ALLOW anonymous comments, yet she derides people for using this option that she VOLUNTARILY offers. JustaDog, if anonymous comments bother you so much, why do you allow them?
It is not hate but...
JustaDog says she is not a person of hate, but then writes
I really get tired of these fanatical dip-shits with no brains that attack Christians as if they are the enemy.
and
sad that there are sorry worthless jerks like you that exist.
Hmm. Must be some sort of weird definition for the word hate. Both responses above sound very hateful to me. The thrust of the messages above don't attack the differences of opinion, but the person. For me, that IS a hateful style of communication.
We can't know for sure whether or not JustaDog truly hates this person, but, judging from the way she has chosen to express herself, it certainly sounds like it!
When you suggest that, 'those that kill innocent people with weapons of mass destruction need to be tracked down and killed before they kill again' and further define WMD as those that can kill more than one person .. you seem to be advocating violence against our government. I say that because of the thousands of innocent civilans that Mr. Bush et al. have murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan. I question your patriotism for making such an assertion. I would instead assert that they should be impeached, followed by a fair trial for the war crimes they have committed. Even mass murderers such as they are entitled to due process. Shame on you.
Interesting comparison, Anon.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder:
Some cases of premeditated, intentional killing have lawful excuse and thus are not legally murder. These include killing non-surrendered enemy combatants in time of war, killing a person who poses an immediate threat to the lives of oneself or others (i.e., in self-defense), and executing a person in accordance with a sentence of death. Sometimes killings under extreme provocation or duress are legally excused as justifiable homicide.
Now, if we're talking about the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians (at least, the ones who aren't harboring terrorists), you might have an argument for this:
When an illegal death is not caused intentionally, but is caused by recklessness (not in Australia) or negligence (or there is some defense, such as insanity or diminished capacity), the crime committed may be referred to as manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, which is considered to be less serious than murder. In the United States, manslaughter is often broken into two categories: involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter.
More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes
So many to defend the terrorists that kill innocent people. Tell me, what crime are they guilty of? Those that bash the efforts to remove terrorists never mention the murders, beheadings, bombings of innocent people because they support those activities. They only wish to make the USA look bad - sorry - vain attempt and my readers are too smart for that.
Terrorists and insurgents don't seem to be playing by your "rules".
Those that bash the efforts to remove terrorists never mention the murders, beheadings, bombings of innocent people because they support those activities.
What a leap of reasoning! You should join the US Olympic Team as a long jumper.
Post a Comment