Ha - Some Conservatives are finally admitting the TRUTH now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FirstFreedom

Moderator
Sunday on Fox News Bill Kristol said repeatedly that we are in a War On "Jihadist Islam". Thank you sir, for having the intellectually honesty for telling it like it is, and not trying to mislead the public with the farcical bogus catch phrase "War on Terror", which can never be won, and therefore cannot and does not exist, since wars have an end.

Now without the smoke and mirrors, we can focus the argument where it really should be - that is, whether we need a war on "Jihadist Islam". Perhaps we do, but at least, whether we do or don't, it could be winnable, depending on how you define that phrase, unlike the "war on terror". Now if a partial genocide is required to accomplish that end, then we should be debating whether we ought to be suspending our civil liberties until said nation-sponsored genocide is complete - then we can get them back after the 'conservatives' have done that dirty business, correct? Because we'll NEVER get the stolen power and lost civil rights back if that is only to happen at the end of the 'war on terror'. We should all thank Mr. Kristol for his forthrightness on the issue.

Don't get me wrong - it's quite possible that a war SHOULD be waged on jihadist islam, if the stakes are high enough. Maybe it IS necessary to convince all "jihadist" Muslims the world over to become non-jihadist muslims, or kill them. But pul-ease, folks on both sides of the arguments - stop with this utter nonsense about the 'war on terror', and let's start instead spending our efforts DEFINING the phrase "jihadist islam", ANALYZING whether it COULD be eradicated, and at what cost, and PROPOSING specific plans, long and short term, to accomplish the end, and DEBATE whether it's worth it.

First step would probably be to leave Iraq and let the most radical Sunnis and Shiites over there kill each other for awhile - that's a self-correcting mechanism, when the hottest of the hotheads from each faction kill each other off in the name of religion - hopefully the (relatively) secular Sunnis who had control before will regain control as a check against the Shiite power backed by the very powerful Iranian, Syrian, and Lebanese clerics, go get Osama, and start killing people for their beliefs (i.e. kill them for holding the belief that it's ok to kill others - us, the great satan, to accomplish their religious ends), or spreading "normal" non-violent Islam through missionary and other proselytizing efforts.

That IS what Billy is saying, correct, by saying "war on Jihadist Islam"? Or do we only kill those who ACTUALLY kill in the name of their religion, not the ones that just believe it's ok, but let the others do it for them, hoping that eventually the meek ones will be the only ones breeding?

That better, Trip? :)
 
Gee, I thought anyone with any form of logicical thinking had already connected the two, I didn't need some talking head on the tv to spell it out for me.:rolleyes:
 
Apparently, you do need a lot spelled out for you, because you weren't engaging your brain at all, if you think the two are in any way synonymous. One is winnable and real, the other is a contrived farce instituted to forever take away rights and aggrandize the government's power. That's the REASON that Bushco and others have used the phrase they did, because it hands over power permanently, instead of temporarily. The war on terror is a LIE from the get go. But Mr. Kristol, having more brainpower AND honesty than your average conservatives, finds himself having to admit the truth, which will bring out the cold reality that civil liberty suspensions SHOULD end at some point (much to the chagrin of the current politicians in charge and other assorted nazis fascist bush-lovers everywhere - not saying that ALL bush lovers are nazi-fascist types, but SOME are), and that what this comes down to is a fight against a SECT of a RELIGION, not people who use terror tactics in general, whether or not for religion, or any other reasons, such as for raw imperialism/conquest, for example. Words MATTER, and such honesty in defining the enemy is an indispensable first step in defeating the enemy. If you declared war on the Germans, but not the Japanese, would you expect to WIN a war against the Japanese? Of course not, because you're not fighting them. Declaring a war on terror is akin to declaring war on martians. Martians don't exist, and therefore can never be defeated, and therefore the war will never end, and therefore all these suspensions or infringements of civil liberties which "must be done" because of the "exigent circumstance" of being at war, will never end in a million years. That's how dictatorships are made.
 
"which can never be won, and therefore cannot and does not exist"

You lost me with this nonsensical statement. It CAN'T be won, THEREFORE it does NOT exist? Huh?

John
 
Apparently, you do need a lot spelled out for you, because you weren't engaging your brain at all, if you think the two are in any way synonymous. One is winnable and real, the other is a contrived farce instituted to forever take away rights and aggrandize the government's power. That's the REASON that Bushco and others have used the phrase they did, because it hands over power permanently, instead of temporarily. The war on terror is a LIE from the get go.
Click to expand...

I've never been sent out to destoy Islamic Jihadist, but I have been sent to destroy terrorists who were Islamic Jihadist. Through logic, I figured out that the Islamic Jihadists is who we were fighting.

But Mr. Kristol, having more brainpower AND honesty than your average conservatives, finds himself having to admit the truth, which will bring out the cold reality that civil liberty suspensions SHOULD end at some point (much to the chagrin of the current politicians in charge and other assorted nazis fascist bush-lovers everywhere - not saying that ALL bush lovers are nazi-fascist types, but SOME are), and that what this comes down to is a fight against a SECT of a RELIGION, not people who use terror tactics in general, whether or not for religion, or any other reasons, such as for raw imperialism/conquest, for example. Words MATTER, and such honesty in defining the enemy is an indispensable first step in defeating the enemy. If you declared war on the Germans, but not the Japanese, would you expect to WIN a war against the Japanese? Of course not, because you're not fighting them. Declaring a war on terror is akin to declaring war on martians. Martians don't exist, and therefore can never be defeated, and therefore the war will never end, and therefore all these suspensions or infringements of civil liberties which "must be done" because of the "exigent circumstance" of being at war, will never end in a million years. That's how dictatorships are made.
Click to expand...

Pointing out the obvious make him smarter than everyone else?:confused:
Killing terrorists has been our mission for 5 years and by staggering coincidence they were also Islamic Jihadists.


I think I'll go polish my tinfoil hat now:rolleyes:
 
I always found the War on Terror term to be a little too general. I don't see the US going after the IRA or other non-islamic terrorist organizations. call it for what it is and stop tippy toeing around it.
 
anyone who dissents against authority, and acts out on it, is a terrorist. anyone.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Which is why the phrase "war on terror" is ITSELF so dangerous to US, united states citizens! Calling it what it really is, will save us in the long run. That's what Don fails to grasp. Yes, so far, they did in fact, as Don says, JUST SO HAPPEN to also be islamic jihadist. What he fails to realize is that tomorrow, anyone the gov't doesn't particularly care for, such as gun owners, is automatically deemed to be a "terrorist" - and acted upon accordingly in this never ending war on "terror". That's the problem; we cannot rely on our gov't to make the distinction, and hope that the people we are at war with all remain in the future to JUST SO HAPPEN be islamic jihadists. We can't allow ourselves to be brainwashed into thinking that a perpetual state of war is acceptable. Once the boogeyman of a "terrorist" is entrenched in our psyches, then it's an EASY next step to find all manner of domestic "terrorists" - in fact that term is used quite frequently, and sometimes has validity. Anyone read "1984"? Perpetual state of war, indeed.

Rick, yes, of course, some people have attempted to re-name the farce "global struggle with extremism", rather than "war on terror", which helps some, but really still doesn't cut it at all - it IS more honest, in that it ADMITS that this *thing* is never-ending, since "extremism" is such an ambiguous phrase that it's patently obvious that it can be manipulated into whatever the powers that be want it to be, and so clearly, it's never-ending. But there's the problem. A 'war on terror' is never-ending but is dishonest, because it fails to admit it. A 'global struggle with extremism' is honest because it admits essentially that this is never-ending, but yet it's still quite vague, unwinnable, and can and will eventually be applied domestically to whomever is the non-conforming-citizen-du-jour (gun owners). But the phrase "war on jihadist islam" is radically different - it is capable of being defined in such a way that it can be won, will end, and YOU and I can steer clear of being locked up and detained without trial by the government, or killed, by just steering clear of it - actually, it could be problematic for muslims in the united states (and elsewhere) who are accused of being "jihadist" when they are not, but it's far less problematic for the citizens of the U.S., when it comes to retaining our civil liberties, particularly if you're not muslim at all, which most Americans are not. So, it will be interesting to see which conservatives embrace Kristol's and National Review's line of thinking, and which conservatives reject it. The ones that reject will be showing their true colors, and should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

There is nothing at all nonsensical about saying that the war on terror "can not and does not exist". By DEFINITION, a war can be won, and will have an end, with either victory or defeat. Terror is a concept; a tactic used throughout the ages, and will never stop entirely. One therefore can NOT win a war against "terror" or "terrorism". In fact, one cannot even wage a war that by definition, cannot exist. Sure, we're fighting and killing people out there, but it's really a war against jihadist islam (including al queda), and saddam hussein's regime, no more or less. Since saddam hussein's regime was not connected to jihadist islam (it was a secular government), it clearly does not fit the definition of the enemy.

If I said "I'm at war with molecules of O^2 in the atmosphere, and I will eradicate every last one.", would you think to yourself, "Man, he's got a tough row to hoe to win that war, but it's a laudable goal", or would you think to yourself, "He's insane. He's not at war; he just thinks he is." ??

Pointing out the obvious make him smarter than everyone else
Click to expand...

No, you MISSING the obvious, that WORDS MATTER, makes you errmmm, in need of clarification.
 
"There is nothing at all nonsensical about saying that the war on terror "can not and does not exist"."

Sure there is. You are redefining terms right and left to suit yourself.

John
 
isn't that what apologists do? redefine whatever's convenient to serve their cause, however hypocritical it may be?

see, it's not about "left" or "right", "liberal", or "conservative".... those are petty terms that have been warped out of context to the point where it's beyond silly. Instead, you have the so-called "tin foil hats", and even worse, the "know-nothings", completely oblivious.
 
No, you MISSING the obvious, that WORDS MATTER, makes you errmmm, in need of clarification.
Click to expand...


No I was able to clarify it myself through practical application. I didn't need a talking head on the boob tube, or some writer sitting in NYC to clarify it for me.
 
anyone who dissents against authority, and acts out on it, is a terrorist. anyone.
Click to expand...

What about those who engage in nonviolent civil disobedience? Or simply write a book protesting some aspect of authority?

As for winning a war on terror, it is possible but not in the sense most use it. While the use of terror as a means of influencing society will always remain an option for those willing to engage in it, it is possible to radically reduce the likelihood of its use by making it a losing proposition: a solid refusal to acquiesce to terrorist tactics, and a policy of eliminating those who engage in it. Right now, terror is an effective weapon because those who fund its use (the Saudis and Iranians, amongst others) are largely immune from reprisals. When those in positions of power lose their immunity (and their lives), terror will return to being the weapon of choice amongst fanatics who would rather die than live in a world where their particular brand of reality is not accepted by all.

It's much the same as saying there was a war on nuclear war, which the concept of mutually assured destruction (although said concept wasn't an actual tactic) was seen as. During that period, those in positions of power knew that large scale use of nuclear weapons would result in the extermination of the very things the use was decided to achieve (i.e. conquest of nations) or prevent (the safety of said nations). It was a guaranteed losing proposition and thus was never acted upon. When terror is treated the same way, it will become noteworthy for its rarity, not its frequency.
 
buzzknox, that's not my definition, but rather, how "the state" sees it. and in a state of civil unrest, civil disobedience (although one of the ultimate expressions of true patriotism) would likely be treated as treason.


and I think it would be more accurate to say "using fear as a means of influencing society", rather than terror. If you get the herd all spooked, they'll be willing to believe anything you say that makes them think you're going to protect them.

the cues are all there, especially on FOX News... terror alert: fuscia
utter absurdities.
 
You obviously don't get it

You obviously don't understand the threat and likely never will if after decades of attacks on our citizens, government and economy you are STILL questioning whether or not there is an enemy who wishes to eradicate our way of life.

You fail to see the HUGE threat of a class of people - no matter what you call them - actively working towards the utter destruction of your way of life while simultaneously pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

Furthermore, your efforts to convince people that there is no threat, though laughable, plays directly into the enemies' hands since its only result is to lessen our resistance to them.

Take your head out of the sand, and become a patriot that is willing to defend our way of life from a deadly enemy.
 
you obviously forgot about promises a president made regarding real important issues in our country; instead, social programs being backslashed, to fund a witchhunt, and instigate a poorly planned crusade in Iraq.

we're rebuilding Iraq, but people in NO are shortchanged? much of the lower 9th is now just a big field.

I think it's you who needs to get out of the bunker, and take a look at what's going on here in our own country. Safety is a priority, but no more of a priority than obligations to the people.

the ones with the tinfoil hats, are actually the gung-ho fools who really believe our way of life will be threatened by a few fundamentalists...talk about paranoia. Islam is a peaceful religion, albeit you have a few screwballs out there...same applies to christianity.
 
"which can never be won, and therefore cannot and does not exist"
Click to expand...
The people who lived during the 100 years war must have thought the same thing. :rolleyes:


Help please... :confused:

How is this thread "on topic" and so many others not???

It doesn't seem to be about guns...etc

Why is it not closed as so many others are? :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top