Political Irony
- Thread starter gburner
- Start date
Fred Hansen
New member
I suppose that it's just too hard to put 2+2 together, and realize that it makes 4.
Islamic fundamentalism has been on the rise for well over 30 years now, and in case you didn't get the memo, the attacks committed by those animals were increasing in frequency, and effectiveness. One of the many reasons that folks like Osama bin Blowdup and the other freaks of nature cited for their increased boldness was America's response to such attacks. That is to say, that since Americans were not going to respond to terrorist attacks in any meaningful way, would it not then be a good idea for they (as death-cult psychotics) to strike at the infidel while he is weakened by his unbeliever nancy-boyism?
Another situation that bolstered the resolve of the death-cult psychotics was that in Iraq. Here the U.S. was - as a self-proclaimed Super Power - being pushed around by a tin-horn dictator in charge of a teeny tiny little kitty-litter tray of a country, and the American infidel dogs were powerless against the mighty Arab. The U.S. couldn't even defeat the daddy of the "Mother of All Battles". This, despite the fact that kindly old uncle Saddam was something of an unbeliever himself. So Osama and his freak of nature types say to themselves "Hey! If Saddam the unbeliever can hold the U.S. at bay for over a decade, shoot at the American's airplanes 5-6 times a week, and we death-cult psychotic types can blow up the Americans here-there-and-everywhere with impunity, then surely this must mean that Allah is on our side, and victory is ours for the taking!"
Hence things like the U.S.S. Cole. Damn near sunk by a rubber raft filled with dirty animals. America responded by sending our police! We sent the F.B.I. to investigate. Then, when John O'neil the Special Agent in charge of the investigation returned from Yemen, and he outlined his belief that the '93 Twin Towers bombing, Khobar Towers bombing, African Embassy bombings, etc. were being coordinated by a group called Al-Qaeda (The Base), Bubba Clinton and company said "Whatever dude!" John O'neil quit the F.B.I. and got a security job at the Twin Towers in NYC. He believed that the Towers were (again) going to be Al-Qaeda's next major target , and he wanted to try and help thwart the attack. John O'neil died on 9/11 trying to save lives, as did Rick Rescorla and a host of other Americans - many of them heroic - because of our country's inability/unwillingness to make the sacrifice to defend itself properly.
Osama and his lice infested brethren never dreamt that Trashcanistan would fall to the infidel in response to their glorious victory on 9/11. Nor did they expect that Iraq would be invaded. Thousands of Osama's hardest corp have swarmed into those places to fight the infidel. They have been whacked and stacked like cord-wood. Intelligence that would have been unobtainable has been intercepted and recovered in places that none of us would go even on a bet. All because of the willingness of a tiny fraction of our population to defend our country. That's the raison d'etre of our military BTW. PROTECT OUR COUNTRY!!! We can fight the animals here, and have sheeple blown up by the thousands, or we can fight them in their hellholes. In any case, the fight's on whether you like it or not. All that hangs in the balance is civilization, so don't worry your precious little heads too much. Wouldn't want you to lose any sleep in your comfy beds. :barf:
Islamic fundamentalism has been on the rise for well over 30 years now, and in case you didn't get the memo, the attacks committed by those animals were increasing in frequency, and effectiveness. One of the many reasons that folks like Osama bin Blowdup and the other freaks of nature cited for their increased boldness was America's response to such attacks. That is to say, that since Americans were not going to respond to terrorist attacks in any meaningful way, would it not then be a good idea for they (as death-cult psychotics) to strike at the infidel while he is weakened by his unbeliever nancy-boyism?
Another situation that bolstered the resolve of the death-cult psychotics was that in Iraq. Here the U.S. was - as a self-proclaimed Super Power - being pushed around by a tin-horn dictator in charge of a teeny tiny little kitty-litter tray of a country, and the American infidel dogs were powerless against the mighty Arab. The U.S. couldn't even defeat the daddy of the "Mother of All Battles". This, despite the fact that kindly old uncle Saddam was something of an unbeliever himself. So Osama and his freak of nature types say to themselves "Hey! If Saddam the unbeliever can hold the U.S. at bay for over a decade, shoot at the American's airplanes 5-6 times a week, and we death-cult psychotic types can blow up the Americans here-there-and-everywhere with impunity, then surely this must mean that Allah is on our side, and victory is ours for the taking!"
Hence things like the U.S.S. Cole. Damn near sunk by a rubber raft filled with dirty animals. America responded by sending our police! We sent the F.B.I. to investigate. Then, when John O'neil the Special Agent in charge of the investigation returned from Yemen, and he outlined his belief that the '93 Twin Towers bombing, Khobar Towers bombing, African Embassy bombings, etc. were being coordinated by a group called Al-Qaeda (The Base), Bubba Clinton and company said "Whatever dude!" John O'neil quit the F.B.I. and got a security job at the Twin Towers in NYC. He believed that the Towers were (again) going to be Al-Qaeda's next major target , and he wanted to try and help thwart the attack. John O'neil died on 9/11 trying to save lives, as did Rick Rescorla and a host of other Americans - many of them heroic - because of our country's inability/unwillingness to make the sacrifice to defend itself properly.
Osama and his lice infested brethren never dreamt that Trashcanistan would fall to the infidel in response to their glorious victory on 9/11. Nor did they expect that Iraq would be invaded. Thousands of Osama's hardest corp have swarmed into those places to fight the infidel. They have been whacked and stacked like cord-wood. Intelligence that would have been unobtainable has been intercepted and recovered in places that none of us would go even on a bet. All because of the willingness of a tiny fraction of our population to defend our country. That's the raison d'etre of our military BTW. PROTECT OUR COUNTRY!!! We can fight the animals here, and have sheeple blown up by the thousands, or we can fight them in their hellholes. In any case, the fight's on whether you like it or not. All that hangs in the balance is civilization, so don't worry your precious little heads too much. Wouldn't want you to lose any sleep in your comfy beds. :barf:
Fred Hansen
New member
Pretty comfy. I'm too old (so they tell me) to go back on active duty. I asked on 9/11/01. How was your military service? Fun? Exciting? Insightful? 
Fred Hansen
New member
I never told anyone that they have no right to an opinion. I'm merely pointing out that some people (without regard to their duty status) can't seem to connect some pretty obvious dots.
Fred Hansen
New member
Big time grouchy. 
I'm callin' Bravo Sierra, Fred...
You said:
...in response to Handy's posts in this thread, complete with your obligatory "barfies" (which would be so much more effective if not overused in every post you make; as it is, it just makes folks want to hand you a bottle of Pepto, since you apparently yak with the slight change of barometric pressure or the Dow Jones... )
Anyhow, the person you were directing your spittle-on-the-monitor-screen invective at is not safe in his comfy bed like you and I, but out worryin' his little head in a job that could get him shot at so that you and I can remain free to fluff our pillows.
All in the sake of accuracy of posting, mind you...
You said:
...in response to Handy's posts in this thread, complete with your obligatory "barfies" (which would be so much more effective if not overused in every post you make; as it is, it just makes folks want to hand you a bottle of Pepto, since you apparently yak with the slight change of barometric pressure or the Dow Jones...
)Anyhow, the person you were directing your spittle-on-the-monitor-screen invective at is not safe in his comfy bed like you and I, but out worryin' his little head in a job that could get him shot at so that you and I can remain free to fluff our pillows.
All in the sake of accuracy of posting, mind you...
Fred Hansen
New member
I'm failing to see how any of that equates with telling anyone they have no right to an opinion. That would be just as ridiculous as saying that all of your snide remarks to me equates with you telling me that I have no right to an opinion. Bravo Sierra indeed.
Fred Hansen,
I'll refrain from the easy shots about pots and kettles.
I must have missed the point of the whole "comfy beds" allusion, then. Were you referring to the fact that those in the services were unaware of the danger due to their sleeping in comfy beds? That the introduction of sprung mattresses into barracks has rendered our armed forces blind to the situations they find themselves in? What was the "comfy beds" a reference to? Traditionally, of course, it has to do with folks snug and safe at home and asleep while others are out worrying their heads so the homebodies in the comfy beds don't have to. Mayhap it's been assigned a new meaning...
I'll refrain from the easy shots about pots and kettles.
I must have missed the point of the whole "comfy beds" allusion, then. Were you referring to the fact that those in the services were unaware of the danger due to their sleeping in comfy beds? That the introduction of sprung mattresses into barracks has rendered our armed forces blind to the situations they find themselves in? What was the "comfy beds" a reference to? Traditionally, of course, it has to do with folks snug and safe at home and asleep while others are out worrying their heads so the homebodies in the comfy beds don't have to. Mayhap it's been assigned a new meaning...
Fred Hansen
New member
I didn't ask you to refrain from them. Nor did I suggest that you use fewer of the winky smilies that you sprinkle throughout your posts in order to mask insulting remarks.
You also missed that the thrust of my post was aimed at FirstFreedom, but then you just assumed that all of it was aimed at Handy. What can I say?
I happen to find both of their opinions -popular as they may be - to be less than optimally informed in terms of both a knowledge of current events, and of recent history. And I outlined why I believe that to be in my post. What I did not do - at any time - was say that either Handy, FirstFreedom, or any one else, was not allowed to have an opinion. Not once.
But to get back to the comfy beds "allusion" as you so aptly put it, I find that among my friends and aquaintances there are those people who operate in a condition of awareness about the world that resembles consciousness. I also find others who operate in a state of what might be said to resemble sleep. Hence the common admonition "Wake up!" that one might use to gain another's attention. For those who have chosen to ignore the recent lamentable history of our country's unwillingness to deal with the problems of both Islamofacist terror, and secular dictatorships in the middle east, I would indeed admonish them to wake up. Should they chose not to do so, then I would say that they are welcome to sleep comfy in their beds, since they aren't going to turn the tide of this global conflagration one way or another.
Having said that, it has been my great honor to know dozens of people who have served in our Armed Forces, and I am especially appreciative of those currently serving in our Armed Forces without taking in to account what their opinion of the current situation might be. That they suited up, and showed up, is more than most folks will ever do.
However, of those that I know personally, who are either currently overseas, home on leave, or rotated back home, not one believes that our mission in Iraq, Trashcanistan, or the other blighted places in the world, is anything less than necessary. To the last man and woman they understand that it has been their mission that has brought the fight to the feet of the animals who started and/or precipitated it. And while each and every one of them is concerned about being shot at, they, as fighting men and women, know that inaction at a time that demands reaction is just as perilous. They also don't refer to the anomaly of Abu Ghraib, or any of the problems they have had vis-a-vis contractors and sub-contractors as anything other than typical military SNAFUs. They recognize that so far at least, they have been engaged in the single most successful military operation in the history of planet Earth.
Oh, and one other thing, they also knew (from before the very day they signed up) that they might well get shot at. They weighed that fact against the potential loss of freedom for all of humankind, and decided to take their chances.
Well Fred, some of that sounds alot like a pot-shot at me, but I'll let you know some things without grousing.
First off, none of my posts in this thread reflect my personal beliefs on any of this stuff, aside from the belief that people I disagree with might not necessarily be idiots. My comments are about the public perception of the reasons for the war, the handling of the war and what affect those perceptions have on the re-electability of George Bush. For instance, I also view Abu Ghraib as anamoly, but it is a sticking point for those who "don't get it." And judging by some of the approval polls, not getting it is a malady that is somehow spreading.
And let's talk about not getting it. While you seem blessed with some sort of foreign policy 20/20, not everybody else is. In fact, my off-going commanding officer, a Navy Captain of 28 years service who runs the most tactically important air training facility in the Navy, felt that it was all a bit unclear. So he called an All Officer Meeting to discuss the Iraq situation. This man is the most intelligent and informed person I have met in the military, and is usually described as someone 'of vision'. At that meeting he told us what he thought were the reasons for the war (he didn't know for sure), and how that fit into global foreign policy. What he said made sense, was backed up with facts and made us all look at things in a slightly different light.
Nothing he said sounds much like anything you have said about the war, but heh, maybe you're both right. I know this Captain pretty well, so I'm going to stick with his view of what 2+2 really is.
Why did he feel the need? Were there mutinous mutterings in the galley? Of course not. We're all dedicated to the job and happy to do what America asks of us. But alot of people I know in the Navy don't feel that they or the public understands why the war is being done the way it is. Most will likely vote for Bush, but many will do it with some reservation. Not because they might wish to vote for Kerry, but because they wish they had a Reagan to vote for instead. They see the current budget deficit and know that their careers will be impacted. They accept that Iraq is not the end of anything, but more likely the first in a series of progressively dangerous engagements that we will go alone. Part of their bravery is measured by the fact that they'll vote for Bush anyway, despite harboring some pretty serious doubt about him.
My current position in the Navy, coming in contact with so many communities and working daily with sailors E-1 through O-6, has given me many insights into this war, and your take on it is frankly, simplistic. So when you insult me or anyone else for not being as "informed" as you are, I think I'll take it with salt.
First off, none of my posts in this thread reflect my personal beliefs on any of this stuff, aside from the belief that people I disagree with might not necessarily be idiots. My comments are about the public perception of the reasons for the war, the handling of the war and what affect those perceptions have on the re-electability of George Bush. For instance, I also view Abu Ghraib as anamoly, but it is a sticking point for those who "don't get it." And judging by some of the approval polls, not getting it is a malady that is somehow spreading.
And let's talk about not getting it. While you seem blessed with some sort of foreign policy 20/20, not everybody else is. In fact, my off-going commanding officer, a Navy Captain of 28 years service who runs the most tactically important air training facility in the Navy, felt that it was all a bit unclear. So he called an All Officer Meeting to discuss the Iraq situation. This man is the most intelligent and informed person I have met in the military, and is usually described as someone 'of vision'. At that meeting he told us what he thought were the reasons for the war (he didn't know for sure), and how that fit into global foreign policy. What he said made sense, was backed up with facts and made us all look at things in a slightly different light.
Nothing he said sounds much like anything you have said about the war, but heh, maybe you're both right. I know this Captain pretty well, so I'm going to stick with his view of what 2+2 really is.
Why did he feel the need? Were there mutinous mutterings in the galley? Of course not. We're all dedicated to the job and happy to do what America asks of us. But alot of people I know in the Navy don't feel that they or the public understands why the war is being done the way it is. Most will likely vote for Bush, but many will do it with some reservation. Not because they might wish to vote for Kerry, but because they wish they had a Reagan to vote for instead. They see the current budget deficit and know that their careers will be impacted. They accept that Iraq is not the end of anything, but more likely the first in a series of progressively dangerous engagements that we will go alone. Part of their bravery is measured by the fact that they'll vote for Bush anyway, despite harboring some pretty serious doubt about him.
My current position in the Navy, coming in contact with so many communities and working daily with sailors E-1 through O-6, has given me many insights into this war, and your take on it is frankly, simplistic. So when you insult me or anyone else for not being as "informed" as you are, I think I'll take it with salt.
MicroBalrog
New member
You exaggerate, Tamara. I'm a secretary (ex-sysadmin, ex-armourer). Only way I could be shot is off-duty, as the olive green of my unifrom might attract undue attention from the goblins - and I am not issued any of Eugene Stoner's work.
OR did you mean someone else?
Handy,
I apologize for taking the lazy route and slogging you personally. Bad habits die hard. I have nothing but respect and admiration for all of the folks walking the line for the sake of us all.
I am frustrated, though, by you insistance on being a reflection of what others think (your commander, swing voters, family members). You hear these opinions but they are, at best, second hand. How about letting us know where you stand on this whole mess...and it is a mess.
FWIW...We went into the Balkans to stem genocide. Clinton did it without UN approval and dispite misivings by our allies. I don't recall that he earned the same amount of hatred that is being heaped on Bush. As far as I can recall, no one from Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro or any other Balkan country attacked us or declared war on us, yet he got a pass from the UN, Congress and the press.
Fred and Tamara...as a wise woman once said, 'chill out'. Y'all sound like an old married couple arguing over the last Efferdent. Sheesh.
I apologize for taking the lazy route and slogging you personally. Bad habits die hard. I have nothing but respect and admiration for all of the folks walking the line for the sake of us all.
I am frustrated, though, by you insistance on being a reflection of what others think (your commander, swing voters, family members). You hear these opinions but they are, at best, second hand. How about letting us know where you stand on this whole mess...and it is a mess.
FWIW...We went into the Balkans to stem genocide. Clinton did it without UN approval and dispite misivings by our allies. I don't recall that he earned the same amount of hatred that is being heaped on Bush. As far as I can recall, no one from Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro or any other Balkan country attacked us or declared war on us, yet he got a pass from the UN, Congress and the press.
Fred and Tamara...as a wise woman once said, 'chill out'. Y'all sound like an old married couple arguing over the last Efferdent. Sheesh.
Fred Hansen
New member
I'm very glad that you said that, but quite frankly, I could not have inferred that from any of your previous posts that I have read.
I think we agree here as well, provided that it doesn't preclude that those I/we disagree with may be idiots.
I would be very interested in hearing what those reasons were, minus any confidential or above material of course. I formulated my opinion based on what Osama bin Laden has said were motivating factors for him and the base animals who follow him. In addition, I have listened as carefully as possible to President Bush, Secretary of State Powell, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and NSA Rice, et al. within the Bush administration. All of whom have stated many of the above reasons as the basis for the way this war is being prosecuted.
What else is new under the Sun? Alot of people I know aren't sure what makes their car go. They just know that it goes better when it's making noise.
That would be better, but as much as I love and respect that great man, he is not without fault in all of this current mess. When Islamic fanatics slaughtered Marines and Sailors in Lebanon, the U.S.N. slagged the hillsides surrounding the city, but in the end the job was left unfinished. In President Reagan's defense I'll say that the U.S.S.R. was still the biggest bogey on the screen, and as such we had to take care to not start WWIII. The result now is that the death-cultists have in fact started WWIII. We have no more choice in the matter now than did even the fiercest isolationist 5 minutes after the announcment of the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Well, as I said earlier, I would love to hear some of these insights. As I said earlier, none of your previous posts have ever struck me as being anything other than your personal views. I don't wish to speak for gburner, but it would seem that he too took your posts to reflect your views.
As to simplistic, well, I could bore everyone with 5,000 years of conflagration in the middle-east, season it with more than a millennia of the spread of an amazingly violent form of religion, with a dash here and there of a recent historical litany of strikes by elements of that religion that have cost millions of lives, and even add a cup or three of instances where those strikes met no reprisal, but then again, there isn't enough bandwidth in all of cyberspace to cover all of the many insane reasons that humans attack each other. In my defense though, I will point out that my posts are filled with modifiers like: "One of the many reasons..." and "Hence things like...". And frankly, if anyone expects another person to be able to flesh out an entire world conflict in 4-5 paragraphs, well... maybe their expectations of that other person might better be described as unrealistic rather than simplistic.
But in any event, thank you for serving our country. God bless you and your/our shipmates.
PsychoSword
Moderator
Bwahahahahaa!
