AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Time to frog march Obama and Biden out of the White House?

UPDATE 01/24/12: Here is the main reason why NO ONE — neither conservative nor liberal, neither Republican nor Democrat, neither Christian nor Muslim — should have ANY problem with Marines pissing on dead Taliban terrorists: Images: Taliban Proudly Murder 15 Pakistanis

==========

According to the meme of the Left, it is time to ‘frog march’ Obama and Biden to GTMO over this. Afterall, they sanctioned this ‘desecration of corpses’ with their policies. Isn’t that what the Left said about Abu Graib?

Also according to the Left, when Muslims cut off heads of journalists and contractors (Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg) and captured hostages; burn the corpses of US contractors, parade them through town and hang them from bridges (Fallujah); commit ‘honor killings’; stone their women; throw acid in the faces of their girls… none of this is representative of Muslims as a whole. And the acts themselves are not outrageous; what is outrageous is that people are smearing all Muslims, because of the acts of a few. So, of course, I’m sure that the Left is now saying that the act of these Marines is not outrageous, what is outrageous is that people are smearing the US Marine Corps, because of the acts of a few. Right?

Nope, of course not. Liberals are throwing their usual hissy fits and throwing their usual vitriolic hate and bile towards the only government institution they hate: the US military. Especially when this involves the part of the US military they hate the most: the US Marines.

And, of course, who can forget the most famous quote from the leader of the liberal movement regarding the murder and desecration of US contractors in Fallujah:

“I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.” – Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos)

Got that? When America’s enemies, evil terrorists, murder and desecrate the bodies of Americans, liberals side with our enemies. When Americans piss on the bodies our of enemies, evil terrorists, liberals once again side with our enemies.

Well… piss on liberals. (pun intended)

We’re not talking about fellow citizens of a foreign country who are called to arms by their government to fight in a war. We’re talking about despicable, vile terrorists hell bent on murder who are doing the bidding of an evil cult of death masquerading as a ‘religion’. Of course, I guess we shouldn’t expect liberals to know the difference, considering they worship mass murderers like Che Guevera, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro and consider people like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh to be evil.

“Pee on a Crucifix, you’re an ‘artist.’
Pee on The American Flag, you’re a ‘Liberal Free Thinker.’
Pee on a Police Car, you’re an ‘Occupy Wall Street Protestor Hero.’
Pee on the dead Taliban Piece Of **** that just tried to kill you and your fellow Marines, you’re a ‘Villian.'”

And that pretty much sums up the Left. Interesting priorities they have…

I agree with Debow at Blackfive: The Nature of Warriors

Wars and battle are ugly things. The very insides of the dark side of humanity and the razor thin margins of how close we come to being animals when we fight our enemies rises to the very top for all to see. It is not pretty and it is not polite. When you fight an enemy that prefers death to surrender and straps bombs to little children and records it for posterity to blast out all over the world wide web, you need to start fighting a little fire with fire. Spending every day with death tugging at your elbow while, in some cases, watching your men die, some of them good friends. Seeing this happen right in front of you every day can lead to a thirst for revenge and pay back those life debts that few will ever know.

I know that our grandfathers in B-17 crews over Germany, in the forests of the Ruhr Valley and at Tarawa, Bougainville, Guadalcanal, and Iwo Jima felt that thirst for revenge. Our fathers certainly felt it in places like Khe Sanh, Hue City, and the Ia Drang Valley when they were walking point, carrying a machine gun or patrolling the rivers. Who among them didn’t add that extra burst of machine gun fire even though they saw the Messerschmitt they had just shot down only smoking a little as it limped away or put another 40mm round into a bunker, you know, just to make sure. There were many who did not succumb to the temptation to exact revenge, but there were probably some who did…

And now there is talk that this could put a crimp in the peaceful style of the “grab the ankles and run away” exit strategy that the OinC has in mind for Afghanistan; certainly timed to go along with his class warfare “eat the rich” super-dee-duper successful campaign strategy. Al-Reuters has their panties firmly bunched because they think this might stir anti-American sentiment after a decade of war. Really? This is what is gonna lose the war for us? The fact that we are attempting to satisfy these subhuman POS’s from the 7th Century who behead those who will not comply tells me just how far we have fallen down the rabbit hole.

The nature of warriors is something that only warriors will ever know. Those that have never experienced this will never know why these men felt the need to do what they did. But if our military is going to be effective in the long run, our enemies must fear us. They must believe that we are capable of unspeakable evil and every now and then, we have to pull back the curtain a little and let them see a smidgen of what we are holding the lid on while we bomb them further into the stone age. That fear of what those warriors are capable of will save lives.

Was it wrong for these Marines to do this? Sure. Was there a breakdown in leadership? No Doubt. Do I understand with 100 percent certainty why they did it? Absolutely.

As well as with Congressman Allen West:

Congressman Allen West view:

“I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

“All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?

“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”

And, amazingly enough, Bill Maher and I are also in agreement. Granted, liberals are kind of like broken clocks, so…

Also see: Allen West on the Marines Incident: ‘Shut Your Mouth, War Is Hell’

Here we have 19/20-somethings fighting and seeing their buddies killed, or seeing videos of this enemy beheading Americans [reporters, contractors, Soldiers and Marines]. They urinated on the Taliban dead. This is regrettable. After a tough battle even a leader would be tempted to do such a thing. Big deal! Hell, Patton urinated into the Rhine River and it was captured on film! What is so honorable about this bestial enemy that brutalizes his own family with atrocity, and mutilates his women relatives? So, peeing on a corpse is an atrocity now? Horse-puckey! Give them a Battalion Level punishment. Do not ruin the rest of their lives!

As to Secretaries [who never served, never were warriors]: Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, and the rest, I say talk is cheap. What hypocrites you are; you crooked politicians! You wear white-washed robes but you are rotten underneath. You talk about honor but you have no pedigree in the subject, and no moral righteousness for this trumped-up indignation. Go ahead, apologize to the Taliban, you idiots. Shame on you for continually persecuting and demoralizing your own warriors. Go ahead, finish off the world’s best enforcers and defenders of peace … you jerks. This is the real crime!

Here: See what war is really all about.

King David, using Goliath’s sword, cut off the head of Goliath after he had killed him, and God blessed King David and the Israelites. I say God Bless the US Armed Forces and the US Marines for taking the fight to the sworn Taliban enemies of civilization and the United States, and killing them!

Photobucket

[H/T Vinnie at The Jawa Report]

Also see: Taliban Urinegate and Vampire Movies

So now we have a videotape of some marines breaking the rules and taping it. It’s curious why they did that, and now it’s gotten out. Snerdley, which do you think is more offensive, a greater transgression: Abu Ghraib photos or the urination on corpses of the Taliban. Abu Ghraib far worse. Abu Ghraib far worse than urinating on Taliban corpses. I know we don’t know when this happened. The details are sketchy. So as a discussion matter, we’ll take it as it is. But get this Reuters story: “Taliban Says Marine Tape Will not Hurt Afghanistan Talks.” Now, what does that tell you? What does that tell you?

All of a sudden you have something that, if they wanted to, the left could exploit as another Abu Ghraib. That goes without saying, Abu Ghraib blamed on Bush, why isn’t this blamed on Obama? Nothing can go wrong. This will be blamed on the individuals, not Obama. When a president is Republican, everything that the government does is blamed on him. But the more important question here, the Taliban, those, according to the story, was their people who were dead who were the urinatees. And the Taliban says that that tape is not gonna hurt anything, we’re not bothered by that. I’m simply asking, what does that tell you? (interruption) No. It doesn’t tell us that they’re tired of being hit by drones.

It tells us that they’re winning and they’re close and if they start raising hell about this, it’s gonna delay the ultimate. Karzai is out there saying one thing or another. A senior member of the Afghan government’s High Peace Council said, “Such action will leave a very, very bad impact on peace efforts.” But the Taliban says, ah, not gonna hurt anything here. Taliban must think they’re close to winning. Taliban must think they’re pretty close to taking over Afghanistan. There are peace talks going on, and the Taliban must think that we’re pretty close to surrendering it to ’em and getting out, and they don’t want this to come along and stop that process and delay. That’s how I interpret it. This would be my wild guess.

Obviously Urinegate will not interrupt the process of turning the country over to the Taliban. If they wanted to they could go after Obama. They could be out there saying that Panetta should resign. Where is CODEPINK? Where are all these anti-war groups? Where are these people who hate the military compared to way they were around at Abu Ghraib? You remember the fake stories about flushing a Koran down the toilet from Michael Isikoff. They wanted to frog march Bush and Cheney into jail over Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib was on the front page of the New York Times above the fold, get this, for 32 straight days. Urinegate, ah, what’s the big deal? No big deal. We can’t even pinpoint when it happened. We’ll deal with it internally. Panetta gets away with talking about how outraged he is. He won’t put up with it. Okay, fine, that’s all we need to hear, let’s move on, nothing to see here.

More:

Correcting the Progressive Spin on My Defense of the Marines

When Dissent Isn’t Patriotic: How Politico Is Playing Media Matters’ Game to Censor Conservatives

Media Matters Tries To Stir Controversy Over Loesch, Limbaugh – Fails

Also see: Rick Perry Defends Urinating Marines: They’re Kids Who Made a Mistake, Not Criminals (Video)

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) on Sunday defended the four Marines who were depicted in a viral video last week urinating on the corpses of three Taliban insurgents, arguing “what’s really disturbing to me is just, kind of, the over-the-top rhetoric from this administration and their disdain for the military.”

“Obviously, 18, 19-year-old kids make stupid mistakes all too often, and that’s what’s occurred here,” the Republican presidential candidate told Candy Crowley on CNN’s ‘State of the Union.’ “But, you know, when you’re in war, and history kind of backs up — there’s a picture of General Patton doing basically the same thing in the Rhine River. And although there’s not a picture, Churchill did the same thing on the Siegfried line.”

Perry/West 2012

And more:

Today’s American Hero Spotlight Goes to Dana Loesch: “I’d Drop Trou and Do it Too”

Uh-oh… if we don’t watch out, the Taliban won’t like us anymore!

“Now we have a bunch of progressives that are talking smack about our military because there were marines caught urinating on corpses, Taliban corpses,” Loesch said during her radio program on FM News Talk 97.1. “Can someone explain to me if there’s supposed to be a scandal that someone pees on the corpse of a Taliban fighter? Someone who, as part of an organization, murdered over 3,000 Americans? I’d drop trou and do it too. That’s me though. I want a million cool points for these guys. Is that harsh to say? Come on people, this is a war. What do people think this is?”

So now, our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters on the left want her fired. For saying she’d pee on a terrorist. They’re really, really angry about that. They’ve been shrieking at her on Twitter for days. I don’t know if I would’ve worded it exactly like she did, and personally I’d prefer if our guys would stick to just killing the bad guys instead of making latrines out of them. They should be subject to whatever disciplinary action is coming their way, and you can bet they will be. But I have no problem with Loesch’s sentiment. I mean, it’s the Taliban. If she’d said she wouldn’t mind peeing on Hitler’s carcass, would the left be freaking out at her like they’ve been doing?

You might be a liberal if…

You think Bill Maher was a hero after 9/11 for saying terrorists are brave, and Dana Loesch is a villain for insulting them. (He agrees with her on this one, BTW.)
You insist you don’t sympathize with terrorists, but you fly into a rage when somebody disrespects them.
Your reply to criticism of Obama is “Oh yeah, well, who killed Bin Laden?”, but you become furious when Bin Laden’s pals are humiliated.

Let this be a lesson to everyone: If you want to pee on a dead terrorist, first wrap him in an American flag. Then Keith Olbermann, Eric Boehlert, and other leading lights of liberalism will cheer you on.

January 15, 2012 , 1:33AM Posted by | Liberalism, Military, Operation Enduring Freedom, Taliban, Terrorism, US Marines | , , , | Comments Off on Time to frog march Obama and Biden out of the White House?

GEN Petraeus is Enabling Muslim Violence

Petraeus warned that burning Qurans “is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems — not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community.”

And one of his deputies, Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, told CNN’s “The Situation Room” that the event “has already stirred up a lot of discussion and concern” among Afghans.

“We very much feel that this can jeopardize the safety of our men and women that are serving over here in the country,” said Caldwell, the head of NATO efforts to train Afghan security forces.

Caldwell said American troops “are over here to defend the rights of American citizens, and we’re not debating the First Amendment rights that people have.” But he added, “What I will tell you is that their very actions will in fact jeopardize the safety of the young men and women who are serving in uniform over here and also undermine the very mission that we’re trying to accomplish.”

Many different blogs that I read have covered the issue of the Florida church decision to burn Korans on 9/11/2010…

AoSHQ: Gen. Petraeus: Church’s Planned Koran-burning Endangers the Troops
Blackfive:
PETRAEUS SAYS KORAN BURNING COULD ENDANGER TROOPS
This Ain’t Hell:
Petraeus warns that Koran burning is bad for the troops
Atlas Shrugs:
MUSLIMS IN INDONESIA, AFGHANISTAN RIOT OVER KORAN BURNING IN FLA
ISAF: NATO Forces in Afghanistan:
AFP: Koran burning will endanger US lives: Petraeus
AoSHQ (DrewM): Burning Korans… A Stupid Idea That Reveals A Lot Of People Are Stupid
The Jawa Report: Burning Korans and Stopping Mosques Out of Spite
Michelle Malkin: The Koran: Don’t burn it. Read it.

…and, after reading many different arguments and opinions on the issue, I still firmly believe that GEN Petraeus is wrong and that his statements are both enabling and encouraging Muslims to continue to be violent. GEN Petraeus is basically agreeing with Ron Paul, that it’s not the ideology of Islam that is the problem, it is the actions of the United States and Americans that is the problem. That, if Americans were to simply stop our actions — stop ‘meddling’ in other countries, stop burning Korans, etc — that Muslims would behave and we could live in peace. That is simply delusional and I am extremely disappointed to hear the commanding General in a war effort subscribe to such a deluded view, blaming Americans for the violence of Muslims, instead of the actual reason: ISLAM.

Here are a couple comments I left at This Ain’t Hell:

Michael in MI Says:
September 7th, 2010 at 5:09 pm

“Since Jones has heard from the top commander on the ground in Afghanistan and he’s been told that he’s endangering the troops with his completely selfish demonstration of the capacity of his brain, I guess we can call his actions anti-military and anti-US since he’s doing the exact same thing that IVAW and Code Pink have been doing for years. Hiding behind the Bible doesn’t change the effect it will have on the battlefield.”

So why didn’t GEN Petraeus make a statement during the previous 7 years for CODE PINK, IVAW and International ANSWER to knock off their “anti-war” rallies, because they were giving aid and comfort to the enemy and were getting our military members killed? Why are we only getting a statement about Koran burning?

I see this in the same vein as censoring the Mohammad cartoons.

Are we going to continue to curtail our own freedoms here, because Muslims have not evolved from the 7th Century?

I believe after WWII, we told Japan that it would no longer practice Shintoism as a State religion. And Germany would no longer have NAZIism. Both countries would be secular and would unconditionally abide by the demands of the victorious Allies. Fast forward to now and both countries are flourishing having been forced “by the point of a gun” to evolve.

We are doing the exact opposite in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are coddling an ideology akin to Shintoism and NAZIism. Imagine if we had allowed the new governments of Japan and Germany to keep Shintoism and NAZIism, respectively. That’s what we have done in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have not only allowed them to keep their own version of NAZIism, but we have told our own nations to stop doing things that will offend the NAZIs.

This is madness.

Instead of upholding the oath the US Military made to defend the rights within the US Constitution, the US military is telling US citizens to curtail their rights. This could have acted as a teaching moment for GEN Petraeus to tell Muslims that in modern civilized society, people are not justified in violence or murder in response to being mocked or offended.

Also, if the point is that we shouldn’t mock or offend Muslims or Islam when we have troops in harms way, I guess we’re never going to evolve Islam into modern civilization, as we did with Japan and Germany post-WWII. Considering we still have troops on bases all over the world, I anticipate we’ll continue to have troops on bases in Afghanistan and Iraq for decades as well. So, apparently, there’s never going to be a good time to stand up to totalitarian Islam, because our troops will always be in harms way, and there will always be someone to say “stop doing X, because it will only offend Muslims and give them a reason to kill our troops”.

I find it highly ironic that our military has come out and asked Americans to stop burning Korans, because Americans are in danger of being killed by angry Muslims, yet no one has come out — government or military — and asked the Muslims to not build a mosque at Ground Zero in New York.
My little brother is over in Afghanistan now (CPT in US Army) and I could not be prouder of the guy. But I just sit back and wonder why the hell we’re over there anymore, since it does not seem we’re attacking the core problem — Islam — and instead we’re simply emboldening their bad behavior.

Michael in MI Says:
September 7th, 2010 at 5:19 pm

Muslims get violent about everything percieved to be against allah, except

Throwing acid on Schoolgirls, Cutting off Noses and ears, killing 6 year olds for Being US Spies, Blowing up aything they can get. Cutting off a Professors hand for writing paper questioning Muhammeds Life.

Sorry my tolerance for Muslims feelings has run out.

Does anyone think if these Idiots dont burn the Koran that Mullah Omar will walk upt to a US patrol with Ice Cream for them?

That OBL will be offering free Pony Rides at FOB Salerno?

Exactly, Sean.

If we’re going to change our behavior to make our soldiers at less risk, why don’t we just ask the Taliban for their demands and then abide by them? No one was burning Korans pre-9/11/2001 and yet they hijacked planes and killed 3,000 of our countrymen. No one was burning Korans in 1996 and 1998 when Osama made his fatwas against the United States.

So where does this end? There are *plenty* of things that inflame Muslims and put not only our troops in danger, but also civilians in countries around the world where there are large Muslim populations who riot over the slightest offense to their delicate sensibilities. Are we to just ask the Taliban for their list of grievances, so as to know what not to do, in order to keep our troops safe?

There is a reason that Christians, Jews, Mormons, Scientologists and every other religious group does not get violent and go on murderous rampages whenever they have cause to be offended. Because the civilized world told them to get the f*** over themselves and stop being whiney babies.
We are doing the exact opposite with Muslims. As a result, we are emboldening them to continue their threats, so that they get their way.

When does this end?

I don’t get the reasoning that if my brother dies, because some Muslims were offended at their Koran being burned here in America, that I am to get pissed off at the Church, instead of at the lunatics who subscribe to a 7th Century death cult. The Koran burning would not have killed my brother. The ideology that justifies killing in response to being offended would have killed him.

And, again, that is the core issue and problem: the ideology of Islam. Yet, instead of treating it like every other ideology/religion is treated, we are giving them special treatment, and thus enabling their totalitarian behavior. And GEN Petraeus is using his position to give Muslims even *more* undue protection from criticism.

I left these comments on the Facebook page for “ISAF: NATO forces in Afghanistan“:

“shame shame, for every action there is a reaction….”

Wrong. If someone were to burn Bibles, Christians would not react with violence. If someone were to burn Torahs, Jews would not react with violence. If someone were to burn Books of Mormon, Mormons would not react with violence.

It is FAR past time that we do NOT accept that WE must walk on eggshells for fear of the Muslims’ delicate sensibilities.

And where was Petraeus when the “anti-war” protesters were giving aid and comfort to our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan? He didn’t tell “anti-war” protesters not to protest for fear of giving aid and comfort to the the Taliban and al Qaeda.

This is nothing but cowtowing to Muslims’ threats of violence. The MUSLIMS are in the wrong here.

No one would dare tell any group not to burn Bibles or Torahs or Books of Mormon for fear of inciting violence. They only do when Korans are burned. That says more about Muslims than it does about anyone burning Korans.

Do I believe anyone should burn Korans? No. But that is a completely separate issue than Petraeus telling us we need to behave differently here at home so as not to offend Muslims abroad.

What he SHOULD do is use this as a teaching moment for Muslims. He SHOULD say that it is understandable for any Muslim to be offended by those who offend their religion, BUT that no one has the right to use their offense to justify violence or murder.

==========

You know the best way to keep our soldiers safe from Muslim violence? Not having to send them to the Middle East to fight against a totalitarian death cult hell bent on world domination. Know how we don’t have to send them to the Middle East? By bringing Muslims into the 21st Century and getting them out of their 7th Century death cult mindset.

And that will NOT happen by submitting to their every threat of violence over every action we do that they do not like.

Every other religion and group of people is open to mocking and ridicule. Every other religion and group of people have learned to react to the mocking and ridicule without violence. Every one except Muslims. Why is that? Because we keep giving in to their threats of violence and giving them reason to continue to threaten us. They threaten because it WORKS. They will STOP when it stops working. It will stop working when we stand up to them and tell them NO MORE.

==========

I repeat my earlier question:

What would people say if GEN Petraeus told all the “anti-war” protesters to stop protesting, because it was giving aid and comfort to our enemies and causing our troops to get killed, just like it did during the Vietnam War?

Do those people who are saying the Christian Church is made up of a bunch of idiots also hold the same view for everyone who participated in an “anti-war” protest?

How about the Mohammad Cartoon controversy? Should we not mock Islam at all, because it might make Muslims mad and give them a propaganda coup to hurt our soldiers?

How about the Ground Zero Victory Mosque? Should we stop our protests of their efforts to enact shari’a law in the heart of New York City, because if we do not then it might make Muslims mad and give them a propaganda coup to hurt our soldiers?

What other freedoms granted to us by the US Constitution — to which the US military is supposed to swear an oath to uphold — are we to give up simply because Muslims are stuck in the 7th Century with their delicate sensibilities and justification for murder and violence?

Newsflash for everyone: Muslims get upset about EVERYTHING. If it’s not the Koran burning, then it will be something else. Newsflash: Muslims have been justifying violence and murder of Americans for DECADES. And they will continue to do it for decades, if we keep coddling them and their delicate 7th Century sensibilities.

Unless people are now going to say we should ban all hedonistic behavior in America, because it offends someone or another and that someone or another could become violent and murder people. Everything that offends Christians… now banned. Everything that offends Jews… now banned. Everything that offends Mormons… now banned. Everything that offends Scientologists… now banned.

But, of course, that won’t happen. The only time people talk about banning things is when Muslims get their panties in a wad. And continuing to placate them EMBOLDENS them.

Again, I repeat, what helps our soldiers to keep them safe is to make sure Muslims stop being radical and evolve their backwards culture into the 21st Century. That does NOT happen by bowing down to every threat they make.

You know why our soldiers are over there right now in the first place? Because we didn’t stand up to these people DECADES ago. We have been coddling them and coddling them for DECADES and that has done nothing but EMBOLDEN them.

Continuing to coddle them now just means that the sons and daughters of the troops who are over there now are going to have to go there as well when they join the military, because this is never going to end if we continue to embolden them.

There were some good comments left at Blackfive addressing the fact that Americans have been working to help to improve the lives of Muslims all across the world for DECADES and, in return, they do nothing but hate us and kill us:

grtflmark said…

So – this is ALL very interesting.

I don’t remember the General excoriating the press for “placing our troops in danger” when The Media circulated the FALSE story that the Koran was flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo. Do YOU?

I don’t remember the General excoriating the press for “placing our troops in danger” when The Media circulated the FALSE story that Troops had stolen and vandalized “sacred art and history treasures” in Iraq. Do YOU?

I don’t remember the General excoriating Harry Reid for “putting our troops in danger” when Reid went on International Television and bellowed: “This War is LOST!!”. Do YOU?

I don’t remember the General excoriating Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann or Wolf Blitzer or Katie Couric for “placing our troops in danger” after any of the THOUSANDS of statements they made CHEERING ON The Terrorists and DENIGRATING our Troops. Do YOU?!!!

One would almost think this was SELECTIVE AMNESIA!!

September 06, 2010 at 08:32 PM

Jack said in reply to grtflmark…

No, you are dead on, he did not say shit. Hell it was left to a Marine to say that the deadline is fueling the insurgency. Lets see, what should the general address first? A deadline that is in fact aiding our enemy and helping him to stay in the field or some guys burning a rag?

To say these guys are like the Westboro shit sacks is a stretch. One group wants to burn a book while the other likes to tap dance on the memories of our fallen. I have never considered doing so before, but if I can find a free copy of Mo’s book I am going to burn it too. I would much rather burn their cities and their places of worship but hey, I will stick to what is lawful.

It bothers me when we act as if it is OUR actions which cause these people to hate us. Protect them in Beirut and they kill you. Feed them in Somalia and they kill you. Create nations for them in Bosnia and Kosovo and they kill you. Help them free themselves of Soviet domination and they kill you. Go to work, get on a plane, believe something other than what they believe and they kill you. Promote them, provide for them the benefits of living among us and they kill you. Allow them to believe as they want and they kill you. So F#CK them if NOW, at LONG LAST, after all of the blood they can point to some Korans burned in Florida as the NEW, THE REASON they hate us.

F#ck them. F#ck them and then kill them.

Jack is SPOT-ON. America has been working for DECADES to help Muslims all around the world. And how do they repay us? By hating us and mass murdering us. Think about that. Muslims use American HELP as justification to murder us. So to say that some small church in a small town in Florida is putting soldiers in danger is ASSININE. You know what’s putting soldiers in danger? Their presence in Afghanistan. You know what else puts them in danger? The fact that we are bending over backwards to appease an ideology akin to NAZIism. THAT puts our soldiers in danger.

“grtflmark” makes another excellent point: why didn’t GEN Petraeus speak out over all the other actions that have been done since 2001 which put our soldiers in danger? Why didn’t he tell the mass media to stop giving aid and comfort to the Taliban and al Qaeda? Why didn’t he tell IVAW and CODE PINK and International A.N.S.W.E.R. and the rest of the “anti-war” groups to stop their protests, because it gave aid and comfort to the enemy? Why didn’t he tell the Democrats that their statements and actions to undermine the war efforts were giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

GEN Petraeus is working right into the hands of the shari’a law-supporting Muslims. Instead of doing his job — and keeping his oath — to uphold and defend the US Constitution, he is telling us to submit to the threats of Muslims and give up our freedoms to protest a hateful, intolerant, totalitarian ideology.

Tantor sums up this whole issue well in his comment at Blackfive:

Tantor said…

OK, so everyone agrees intellectually that burning Korans in protest is wrong and creepy to boot, even though emotionally it is a rather satisfying expression of contempt. Macchiavelli gets the last word on the issue with his dictum to do no enemy a slight harm. We should not fire for effect in the war against Islam but shoot to kill. So stop this silly Koran-burning grabass and get to work putting fire on the heads of our Muslim enemies.

The false premise of this entire controversy is that Muslim fanaticism is stoked by our behavior and dependent on us. It’s not. Muslims will hate America whatever we do because it is their doctrine to hate us. If we give them no reason, they will make one up. As a previous poster noted, Muslims want to kill whether you do them right or wrong or are indifferent.

We lifted Saudi Arabia up from abject poverty to indolent luxury and they hate us because we’re not Muslim, use the money to butcher Americans by the thousands. We aided Afghanistan in liberating them from the Soviets and they lend their country to terrorists to attack us. Muslims know no human gratitude. Their morality is reptilian.

As Bernard Lewis wrote, Islam’s grievance with America is that it is a non-Muslim hyperpower in a world that should be ruled by Islam. When wannabe Sep 11 skyjacker Zacarious Moussaoui was asked by the judge why he wanted to attack America, Moussaoui said because Islam should be the superpower, not America. The reason why Muslims hate us is simple religious bigotry. Dressing such murderous Islamic bigotry up in rational causes and effects is like dressing a camel in an evening gown, tiara, and high heels. It’s absurd.

Exactly. It IS absurd. And it’s one level of absurdity for a political pundit or average Joe to state such delusions, but it’s an even HIGHER level of absurdity for the leading General in the war effort to do so.

And General Petraeus should know better. You do not stop violence, murder, hatred, bigotry and intolerance by enabling such by supporting their justifications for such. You stop it by standing up to it and denying them their justifications. But GEN Petraeus did just the opposite. He validated the Muslims irrational justifications for violence and ended up putting his troops in more danger and forsaking his oath to uphold American’s rights in the US Constitution.

It is absolutely disheartening to know that we currently have absolutely NO ONE standing up to Islam… not our current President, not our current Congressional or Senate leadership and now, as it turns out, not our top General in the war effort.

Here are some good comments from the discussion at the AoSHQ post:

24

Eesh. When the man leading the fight against the Taliban says you’re acting “precisely” like them, it might be time to stop and reevaluate.

I think he means it’s precisely the kind of thing the Taliban uses for propaganda purposes (“look how horrible the infidels are!”). Petraeus has seen too much of the Taliban’s handiwork to compare them to a crazy American.

While I think the Koran burning is an idiotic, unhelpful stunt, I really wish we would try and get the Islamic world to cut out some of the shit that pisses us off for a change.

I’ll be a lot more pissed about Koran burning once Pakistan, Iran, etc stops stoning women to death, hunting down apostates and missionaries, religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia, etc.

Of course, ‘outreach’ and ‘tolerance’ only ever goes one way in this world.

Posted by: DrewM. at September 06, 2010 06:29 PM

37 One wonders why none of their people EVER speak out that what they do may make us mad and cause harm to some of their fuckwits over here?

Posted by: Vic at September 06, 2010 06:34 PM

42
It’s absurd to assert that this will make a measureable difference to anything. Here we go again – worrying ourselves to death over what a bunch of vile, worthless savages think. Piss on them – the opinion of some Afghan goat herder means less than nothing to me.

I see one potential benefit from publicizing the koran burning party – perhaps it will discourage a few muslims from moving to this country. Let them go to Europe or Canada instead. Anything that makes America less welcoming to the muz is a good thing.

Posted by: Reactionary at September 06, 2010 06:36 PM

48 It’s rich for Islamic extremists to complain about a few idiots burning Korans when they have been burning Bibles, our flag, and let’s see, what was the other thing? Oh yes, cutting off heads of unbelievers for centuries.

We shouldn’t stoop to their level of course, but they have no room to complain.

Posted by: Shooter McGavin at September 06, 2010 06:39 PM

49 Are we over there to kick ass or win hearts and minds? Because if it’s the latter I say get the fuck out of Dodge. Islam is irredeemable. I’m tired of the islamists sensitivities being so easily offended. They oughta be thanking their moon gawd they’re not sitting around in a pile of radioactive cinders.

Posted by: Fuck Em at September 06, 2010 06:39 PM

50 My response to the General is that this is a political action in the U.S. and he should keep his nose out of it.

In addition, I would submit that the shitty PC attitudes of the current military leadership and the shitty ROE are much more danger to the troops than anything going on over here.

So clean the shit out of your own house before you bitch about the dust on the banisters of my stairwell.

Posted by: Vic at September 06, 2010 06:39 PM

54
I am certainly sympathetic to fact that the koran burners aren’t helping. What they are doing is provocative and stupid.

At the same time I’m not really comfortable with the idea of lecturing Americans on what they should or should not do because of the way foriegn people may react to it elsewhere. While I understand that Petreaus said he didn’t want to inhibit anybody’s first amendment rights… by bringing the prestige of his name and position, and the idea of “endangering the troops” into this matter, he has kind of done just that. This same meme could just as easily be used to attack opposition to the ground zero mosque, or opposition to CAIR, etc.

Posted by: Nate in Houston at September 06, 2010 06:41 PM

61

49 Are we over there to kick ass or win hearts and minds? Because if it’s the latter I say get the fuck out of Dodge. Islam is irredeemable. I’m tired of the islamists sensitivities being so easily offended. They oughta be thanking their moon gawd they’re not sitting around in a pile of radioactive cinders.Posted by: Fuck Em at September 06, 2010 06:39 PM

I was sitting here getting ready to say the same thing. Are we supposed to go to eternity worrying about every little thing that offends these people? I’ve thought a few times that maybe we should turn some area over there into glass and ask them how they like that. Any more shit and we have a list and Mecca is on it too. Now keep it up.

Posted by: Pocono Joe at September 06, 2010 06:44 PM

63 Liberals will love this. They’ll use it to tar all conservatives and GZ mosque opponents with this Koran burning idiot. No doubt the will throw Petraeus’ quote around a good bit.

Imagine for a moment their reaction if 3 or 4 years ago Petraeus had said, “Protesting the surge is not helpful and puts American lives in danger”. I’d bet their reaction to that would be very different.

Posted by: DrewM. at September 06, 2010 06:45 PM

77

Islam is irredeemable. I’m tired of the islamists sensitivities being so easily offended. They oughta be thanking their moon gawd they’re not sitting around in a pile of radioactive cinders.

Posted by: Fuck Em at September 06, 2010 06:39 PM

Exactly. Accomodating the muz brings nothing but a false peace, and gives them time to prepare for their next attrocity.

If anything, more acts of provocation are needed. It seems they need some more object lessons. Of course, we need to wait until a real man is in the White House, so no sense pushing too hard for a couple years.

Posted by: Reactionary at September 06, 2010 06:51 PM

80
For nine years troops have been getting killed by the handful on a daily basis because the generals can’t figure out a way to beat a 12th century enemy.

But let’s ask American citizens not to exercise their rights. That’ll help.

Posted by: i got a gal in kalamazoo zoo zoo zoo at September 06, 2010 06:52 PM

81
Look, this isn’t taking place in Afghanistan. It’s taking place here, in America. Are we really supposed to stop doing things like this here, because of what others in foreign countries might think?

I mean no disrespect when I say this, but we have an openly gay co-blogger named Gabriel Malor. I’m sure that pissess off someone overseas. Do we ditch Gabe? Hell no.

There are a lot of people who think we should let gays serve openly in the armed forces. Well, I’m sure the taliban would have a few things to say about that. So what? If the arguement is that gays have right to serve openly, do we let a bunch of mideval (sic) theocrats in the mountains of Afghanistan have their way about this?

I mean, when the Army clamped down on soldiers who wanted to proslethize (sic) or hand out Bibles in muslim countries, I could understand that.

But here? What the hell? If somebody burning a Koran here in the U.S. endangers U.S. troops overseas, well, I’m very sorry but that is a extra risk the troops will have to endure. And if some are killed because of this, I’m not blaming the Koran burners. I’m blaming the taliban.

Honestly, to me this seems like a no brainer. No disrespect intended, but I can’t see how we could let the taliban dictate what is alowed in terms of free speach here in the U.S.

Posted by: Ed at September 06, 2010 06:52 PM

83

Eesh. When the man leading the fight against the Taliban says you’re acting “precisely” like them, it might be time to stop and reevaluate.

Petraeus said that burning Korans is precisely the kind of thing that the Taliban uses to recruit and motivate troops. When those nutjobbers down in FL start stoning women to death, throwing acid in young girls faces for learning and dropping walls on gay people then they’ll be acting “precisely” like the Taliban.

In any case I think Petraeus and the other military leaders who commented overstepped their bounds. I don’t want additional troops to die anymore than anyone else but we also can’t kowtow to the delicate sensibilities of dark age savages. It’s a pointless, useless, stupid and offensive use of free speech rights but really the problem is not with the idiots down in FL it’s with the people who resort to violence when they are offended and Petraeus played into that with his comments. It would be like Eisenhower telling Americans during WWII not to say mean things about Nazi’s because they might fight harder.

Posted by: Big E at September 06, 2010 06:54 PM

85

65 I am with the General. This gives credence to Al Q’s claim that this is a war against Islam, which, ostensibly, it is not.

I remember the claim Korans were flushed at Gitmo, I’m sure that was a great recruiting tool and it wasn’t even true. The fact is the Taliban and company don’t need some idiot burning korans in order to recruit in the Muslim world, all they need is the ability to speak, so changing your behaior in order to not offend them is pointless and weak.

Posted by: Dr Spank at September 06, 2010 06:54 PM

116

It would be like Eisenhower telling Americans during WWII not to say mean things about Nazi’s because they might fight harder.Posted by: Big E at September 06, 2010 06:54 PM

Imagine, if you will, a Jewish congregation getting together in the late 30’s, early 40’s and burning a pile of copies of Mein Kampf in a public spectacle. Would we condemn them? I should hope not. Burning the koran is little different – in fact, that vile murder manual is a far more offensive book than Mein Kampf. It is more worthy to go up in smoke. It is the text that demands the muslims murder “the infidel” to the utter last. It is used to justify child molestation and rape. That a single copy should be allowed to exist in paper or electronic form within the borders of the United States is an embarassment.

Posted by: Reactionary at September 06, 2010 07:04 PM

156
Oh fuck Petreaus, burning their book is a dumb thing to do and I can’t think of much it accomplishes but if pissing off the Taliban is one thing it does then maybe it’s a good thing.

I never once heard Petreaus bitch about the anti war protesters undermining our troops and giving comfort to the enemy. I didn’t care that he didn’t because I understood his need to stay out of politics. Now the fucker wants to get political?

If he’s got a problem with it for real he should send it to Gates and let Gates explain to the burners why they shouldn’t be doing it.

Posted by: robtr at September 06, 2010 07:16 PM

161 I gotta be honest, I’m really not too concerned about the feelings of people in Afghanistan. Not in the slightest bit.

They allowed their country to be taken over by the Taliban in the first place. We’ve been there almost 9-years, we came to help them change their ways. They chose differently, mainly because of this stupid book.

Stupid stunt? Yeah, but I’m not going to have any sort of outrage about it. Not even entertain the idea. And I don’t buy the “it makes it more dangerous for our troops” argument. You’re doing it wrong, General.

Posted by: Editor at September 06, 2010 07:18 PM

609 As usual Malor is dead wrong on everything.

Muslims object to EVERYTHING. South Park episodes (that don’t even show Mohammed), Danish Cartoons, Swedish Drawings, films by obscure Dutch film-makers. Anything and everything.

Muslims burn American flags, and don’t face (sadly) retaliation by the “American Street.” Muslims celebrated 9/11, from the US to Palestinian territories to Pakistan, and faced no retaliation.

Bottom line, ANYTHING will provoke Muslims. ANYTHING. Modern telecommunications makes the Muslim world right next to ours. So we either roll over and become … Muslims. Or we keep fighting. If we did not have a single military person in Afghanistan or Iraq, we’d have something that would “provoke” Muslims.

The only solution is strength. Frequent and predictable retaliation against Muslim outrages to provide deterrence. Not empty Clintonian missiles, but real retaliation that kills a LOT of those agitating. When Clinton had the US intervening to save Muslims in Bosnia, to the point of war against Serbia, we got … the Embassy Bombings and planning for 9/11 and the Bojinka Plot and all that.

Muslims respect strength and despise weakness. This includes Domestic Muslims, like Major Hassan, or the Times Square Bomber too. That is all.

Posted by: whiskey at September 06, 2010 09:47 PM

613

Of course they do. They also get to live (or die) with the consequences whatever they may be. As I said, freedom of speech never implied freedom from consequences.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 06, 2010 09:37 PM

Purple Avenger, I can’t believe you mean that. Yeah, free speech can have some consequnces. Other people might argue or debate with you. You can get fired or not hired.

But killed? Since when did the chance of getting killed for saying something offensive become acceptable? I thought that was unacceptable and a criminal violation?

Yeah, you can get killed doing something like registering people to vote, or publishing a book, but I don’t think we agree that that is cool or acceptable.

If you kill someone for publishing an offensive book, you are the scumbag, not the guy who published the book.

I mean, ace has published some risque stuff. NO ONE has the right to hurt or kill him for this.

Posted by: Ed at September 06, 2010 09:49 PM

[09/08/10] — Absolutely excellent points — with which I 100% agree — made by DrewM today at AoSHQ:

Imagine the reaction if a few years back Petraeus had said anti-war protests and the constant promotion in the media of photos from Abu Gharib put American lives in danger and hurt the war effort. Do you really think Olby, Andrew Sullivan or any of their friends on the left would have suddenly cleaned up their language and taken on Code Pink, International Answers and then Senator Barack Obama?

In fact, I recall several news outlets breaking news and winning major awards for revealing national security secrets. Where was the outrage then about the danger to American lives?

Funny that, huh?

Another interesting byproduct of this situation is once again the disconnect between the “Islam equals peace” rhetoric and the reality people see on a daily basis. If Islam is so peaceful and only a “tiny minority’ of Muslims are “violent extremists”, why do we constantly have to be so damn sensitive to pissing them off?

When the whole Piss Christ thing happened Christians were told to suck it up and shut up. I don’t remember anyone worrying about marauding bands of Presbyterians going on a murder spree over it. But when it comes to cartoons or a bunch of loons (a true ‘tiny minority) burning some books, the world has to go on red alert if it involves Islam. Why is that exactly?

Naturally, some are making the story about those evil anti-Islamic conservatives. How come they never see the story is actually about the violence in the Islamic world? Now personally, I don’t think terrorists need any more inducement to violence, they being terrorists and all but it would be nice if for once a liberal could find a bad guy in the world other than American conservatives.

It’s also interesting that this group of idiots in Florida is seen as representing America in the Muslim world but we are forever being told by Muslim leaders not to equate Islam with the thousands of acts of terrorism conducted in the name of Islam. How do those two circles get squared?

Aren’t we always told after a terror plot is connected to a Muslim that we can not and will not tolerate a backlash against innocent Muslims? Fair enough but it’s a wasted warning since there never has been a backlash in America despite repeated attacks. Shouldn’t those always crying about these phantom backlashes be lecturing Muslims around the world not to create a backlash against American soldiers because of the actions of a few idiots in Florida?

Excellent, excellent questions. Ones you will neither hear asked nor answered by the MF-ing media or by any of our elected “leaders”.

Some good comments in response to the post:

I agree wholeheartedly with the point that if the freaks in the Christian world are to be considered the mainstream, then this rule applies for everything. That means Bin Laden speaks for Isalm, James Lee and ELF speak for the environmental movement, etc. etc. etc. Either it applies to all or it applies to none.

Posted by: alexthechick at September 08, 2010 12:02 PM

65 On top of it all, for weeks now we have been lectured by the Left that the Muslims have a right to build the GZM and that we are infringing on that right when we say the GZM is a bad idea and disrespectful to those who died on 9/11.

This Guy in Florida has a 1st Amendment Right to burn the Koran. While it is a bad idea and disrespectful of Islam, why isn’t the Left applying the same standard of protecting his rights?

I think it would be a great stunt if this Pastor holds the Koran in one hand and a lighter in the other. Just before he lights the book, he stops and says “The 1st Amendment gives me the Right to burn this book. The 1st Amendment give them the Right to build the Ground Zero Mosque. Both acts disrespect the views of the other. I’m not going to burn this book out of respect for Islam. I ask the builders of the GZM to show the same respect to the people of New York.”

Posted by: Eric at September 08, 2010 12:16 PM

66 It’s hard for me to get worked up about this. Burning Mein Kampf or Mao’s Little Red Book wouldn’t trouble me, either. Heck, you could even pull a Barry and burn some books by Churchill.

If drawing cartoons or saying you’re going to burn a book elicits such violence, then maybe it’s not really a religion.

Posted by: t-bird at September 08, 2010 12:16 PM

103
Adam Baldwin nailed it last night on his twitter.

“Which is worse for the troops:1) Sen. Reid saying “this war is lost”; 2) PrezBO setting withdrawal date; 3) private citizens burning a book? ”

Posted by: buzzion at September 08, 2010 12:24 PM

107 Let me just say up front that the guy who wants to do this is an attention whore who is about the worst advertisement of Christianity one could imagine short of Fred Phelps.

Well, on the other hand, the pastor is performing a service actually. The State Media tell us that Islam = peace constantly, and yet the second someone provokes Islam like this, the State Media tells us Muslims are easily roused to anger and should be appeased. So, the pastor’s actions basically disprove the media narrative as you note in passing.

Posted by: 18-1 at September 08, 2010 12:25 PM

139
This is just the Muslim Outrage d’ Jure… it will be some other manufactured outrage tomorrow. It really does not matter what we do, they will find somthing to get angry over…

Its instructive that the 500 person protest in Afganistan about this, chanted “Death to America”, and threw rocks at passing American vehicles… and this is BEFORE anything has been burned.

I also cringe when I see an American General commenting on Internal American Politics. The long tradition is for the Politicians, such as Sec Def, or the Pres and VP to comment… but Generals should not comment IMO… Patton and McArthur both got canned for doing so… and then of course there is always Custer as an example…

Posted by: Romeo13 at September 08, 2010 12:34 PM

149 If the Koran is so special to them, I say let them prove it. We should say that for every American soldier killed or injured, we burn the Koran. If they do not want the Koran hurt, don’t hurt our soldiers.

Posted by: chillin the most at September 08, 2010 12:38 PM

161 Christians and Christian missionaries are routinely persecuted by Muslims. Bibles are forbidden in Saudi Arabia, along with rosaries, crosses, crucifixes, holy cards, etc., etc. Christian churches are demolished in Pakistan and parishoners are killed without a burp from from the international media. It is hard for me to work up a lather about the ramifications of a tiny church in the USA burning some Korans, when agents of the Magic Kingdom burn Christian bibles by the barrel-full every year.

It seems every day Dinner Jacket and the ayatollahs promise a rain of destruction on Israel; call us the Great Satan; pay assassins top dollar to murder Americans in Afghanistan – and we’re supposed to condemn some idiots because they want to burn Korans. Like Islamists are suddenly going to be APPEASED because we told fellow Christians to JUST SHUT UP because otherwise, Muslim mobs will kill Christians? Like they so often do in Nigeria? Give me a break.

Posted by: mrp at September 08, 2010 12:43 PM

172
If the Koran is so special to them, I say let them prove it. We should say that for every American soldier killed or injured, we burn the Koran. If they do not want the Koran hurt, don’t hurt our soldiers.~chillin

How about just using Korans as added armor on the HumVees?

They burn the hummer, they burn Korans too. Never work, you say? Yeah, that’s because Muzzies take any opportunity to get outraged. Fuck them and their outrage.

Muslim perpetual outrage is just how they get infidels to comply with all Muslim demands. Surrender to any Muslim demand and eventually you will surrender to them all.

Posted by: Speller at September 08, 2010 12:46 PM

183
The fact that we don’t riot, kill or go off the deep end when Bibles, Crucifixes or Flags are burned doesn’t make us look ‘civilized’ in their eyes.

It simply shows them what they are better and stronger. That we are weak and self-debasing. That what they have is worth killing, dying and going off the deep end over. That their God is the one true God because he’s the kick ass God— the one who won’t put up with insults.

Ours is the God who forever complies who is merciful (OK we know it’s a good thing, but not in theirs….it’s viewed as ‘good slave material’)

I don’t condone burning the Koran. Sadly, not burning it (now) just makes us look weak and cowardly….. which they already believe.

It’s a no win situation. They’re the bullies writing the rules of ‘whose religion has the lightening bolts from heaven’ and we repeatedly say “Yours!”

Posted by: EZB at September 08, 2010 12:50 PM

187 When a minister burns a Koran, he’s a bigoted, extremist.

When a lefty defiles a cross, he’s an open-minded, brave truth seeker who seeks to challenge the assumptions of others.

And he gets government funding.

You know what? I’m glad these guys are burning the Koran, if for no other reason to draw attention to how differently the left values respecting the sensitivities of Christians vs. Muslims.

Posted by: Warden at September 08, 2010 12:54 PM

Since 1989, a from-memory list of things which have caused Muslims to threaten (and actually carry out) violence would include: novels, cartoons, films, BK ice cream, tennis shoe design, soccer ball design, girls schools, uncovered women, secular law, democracy, human rights, freedom of speech, and of course doing anything to the holey Quran.

It’s impossible to live in a post-Enlightenment world without offending sharia-pushing global-caliphate-seeking Muslims.

So obviously we should scrap the freedom to offend for some illusory security (until the next trivial blasphemy).

Posted by: Beagle at September 08, 2010 01:32 PM

I was in favor of the whole “creating democracy in Iraq” experiment. But, I am now firmly in the camp of “you can’t build a nation”. It is a 10 year experiment that has failed and failed badly.

We need to give up on nation-building or believing that anything we do will appease muslim extremists and thier “moderate” enablers. We are not going to change the muslim world.

So instead, we need to make the muslim world fear us. If we are going to use military force, we should seek to devastate the enemy. That is all. This is not like Germany or Japan where there were rational and civilized societies in place prior to WWII. In those cases we had a foundation to rebuild upon.

There is no such foundation here. We are kidding ourselves into thinking that the muslim world is going to begin to like us b/c of anything we do or any appeasement we engage in – such as everyone prostrating themselves to condemn those who would burn the koran. I don’t care if they burn the koran. And I am offended that a U.S. General would engage in conduct to censor free speech. Why not engage in that conduct to stop the NYT from printing classified information? Or to stop the left from telling soldiers to go AWOL or kill their officers?

Enough with trying to make them like us. they will never like us. And I don’t care. I want them to fear us so that they don’t attack us. That is all I want. And taht can be accomplished. We are wasting lives and money playing nation building or using our soldiers as diplomats. Enough.

Islam is not prepared to be reformed. It is not prepared to join civilization. I’m sick of pretending otherwise. I’m sick of the millions of disclaimers about all of teh “good” and “moderate” muslims. Sure, there are some. But not enough. They are not the majority of their religion and they have no influencein their religion. Islam spews world conquest, deciet and violence. It is in the text of the koran. Every moment that we pretend otherwise is a moment mainstream islam is winning the greater war (let’s not pretend it is “radical” – the majority of islam is preached and practiced this way, meaning it is mainstream. Moderates in islam are the radicals).

We have come to the point where we are constantly appeasing and offering homage to islam. Enough.

The very fact that we have to worry about violence because 30 idiots in florida want to burn the koran – and it becomes a national issue, proves that islam is winning by becoming the institutionalized religion of the west.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at September 08, 2010 01:35 PM

September 7, 2010 , 9:16PM Posted by | Afghanistan, Dhimmitude, Islam, Muslims, Sharia Law, Taliban | Comments Off on GEN Petraeus is Enabling Muslim Violence

Where Have the Liberal Feminists Been All This Time Regarding Subjugation of Afghan Women?

Good comments in response to this post at Blackfive: The Face of Our Ally, as Made by Our Enemy

jordan said…
I agree, our guys are at the top of the “save and protect” list. That’s why so many families have been so infuriated about the ROE, even knowing all the factors and advantages of “courageous restraint.” If it’s us or them, I pick us, even if “them” is an Afghan civilian just working for Taliban money. Even if it means collateral, horrible damage. I pick us, and I don’t think “saving the women” is a reason to fight and put our guys in harm’s way. (Even as a woman.)

That said, we’ve been making this argument about Afghan women for a decade, and the liberal press has dutifully ignored the issue. Why, after ten years, does a major publication all of sudden do a story on subjugation of Afghan women? Where have the liberal feminists been all this time, while their sisters have lived in misery and fear? I’ll tell you where, undermining, mocking and disappearing the very strength and power it takes to free them. Cutting off at the knees the force and the “macho neanderthals” necessary to make that freedom happen. Liberal feminism? Epic Fail. That’s what that cover says. It also says something lib feminists are too dumb to consider: gratitude. Gratitude toward the very western ideals, thought and power — and men –that make their good, free lives possible.

There’s a tendency with the group currently in power to idealize and worship third world cultures and ways as if they’re somehow more noble than ours. Yet, would they choose to subject themselves to those things they praise in such politically correct terms? No.

Egalitarianism for women in the west is possible because we have civilized and reasonable men. Afghan women are dealing with a whole different animal, and even the U.S. military achieving it’s goals there won’t liberate them. They’ll probably have to resort to arms and deadly force. The women, I mean. I say we give all the Afghan women combat training, arm them to the teeth, and then go home. No, we don’t justify our presence over there on the idea of saving Afghan women.

July 30, 2010 at 09:47 AM

jordan said…
One more thing. There was no end to the media bashing on Gen. Mattis’ comment about Taliban slapping their women around, and how that meant they had no manhood left. They couldn’t stop saying what a caveman Mattis was. (No comment on the Afghan men who preside over the punishment of their women.) It’s probably too much to hope for that this article serves as a reality check for that view, but given that, it’s still what’s in America’s interests that should drive our presence there, and nothing else. Frankly, I’m inclined to let the whole lot of them jump in the lake.

July 30, 2010 at 10:05 AM

August 2, 2010 , 9:17AM Posted by | Afghanistan, Feminism, Liberalism | Comments Off on Where Have the Liberal Feminists Been All This Time Regarding Subjugation of Afghan Women?

Obama’s Afghanistan Policy: The Hokey Pokey

“You put your left foot in
You take your left foot out
You put your left foot in
Then you shake it all about
Do the Hokey-Pokey and you turn yourself around.
That’s what it’s all about!”

That’s the song that comes to mind upon reading this about the Ditherer-in-Chief’s Afghanistan policy, which he finally — after 10+ months of dithering on it — announced tonight:

Now, he says that his dithering didn’t cost any troops any reinforcements because, supposedly, not a single plan presented to him called for troops before 2010.

First of all: What?

Second of all: It will take about nine months just to get these surge troops into place (I base this on the Iraq experience taking five months — and they had seaports and good roads). So there will be a delay — McCrystal said we had a year to win this thing, and that was three months ago. Obama’s dithering means that we won’t have the troops in place before McCrystal’s war’s-over date.

Third: He says in almost the next breath all troops will be out of Afghanistan in 2011.

As a commenter points out — this means the troops will just be built up in-country by the middle/late 2010 and then he’s going to immediately start evacuating them out again.

Huh?

Most of the speech was directed to the left, which I guess is expected. I don’t mind explaining this to the left. I mind throwing them substantive bones like cheaping out on the military and promising, effectively, to begin evacuating the moment we’ve just gotten all the surge troops in place.

Hmmm…

“You put 30,000 troops in,
you pull 30,000 troops out.
You put 30,000 troops in,
And then you shake them all about.
Have them do the Hokey Pokey
and then turn them right around.
That’s what it’s all about.”

Yep, that’s what it’s all about: Obama using 30,000 troops as political pawns to do the hokey-pokey in Afghanistan.

You know, every time that Obama and his frat-boy spokestool Gibbs say “unprecedented”, I think they mean to say “Un-Presidential”.

What an absolute piece-of-sh!t Obama is to use our military in this manner. God help them, and their families, survive this Un-President.

Is it 2012 yet?

December 1, 2009 , 9:23PM Posted by | Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Liberalism, Military, Operation Enduring Freedom, Terrorism, US Military | Comments Off on Obama’s Afghanistan Policy: The Hokey Pokey

Rush Interview with Sarah Palin: National Security

Rush had an absolutely fantastic interview with former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin this afternoon. Be sure to go to his website to listen to the audio or read the entire transcript. I’m going to make a few posts to excerpt her answers to questions on specific issues.

RUSH: You mentioned earlier you wanted to talk about national security, that you hoped it came up. Well, here it is: What do we face? What are our threats, and are we prepared, or not?

GOV. PALIN: Well, I think domestically a threat that we’re facing right now is the dithering and hesitation in sending a message to the terrorists that we’re going to claim what Ronald Reagan claimed. Our motto is going to be: “We win, you lose.” The way that we do that is allow McChrystal to have the reinforcements that he’s asking for in Afghanistan. That sends that message to the terrorists over there that we’re going to end this thing with our victory. We need to start facing Iran with tougher and tougher sanctions that need to be considered. We need to work our allies with the Iranian issues, like Britain and France and not allow access to favorable international monetary deals. That’s a great threat that I think would kind of shake up Ahmadinejad and get him to listen. We need to look at halting Iran’s imports of refined petroleum products. They’re quite reliant on imported gasoline, and we need to use that hammer to wake up the leadership there, too. Those are two big challenges that we have right now, domestically and in naming those two countries, Afghanistan and Iran. Two big challenges there, too.

RUSH: Thirty seconds: Immigration. Can you do it in 30 seconds before we have to go?

GOV. PALIN: I can’t do it in 30 seconds but just know that… You know, let me put it simply: Illegal immigrants are called “illegal” for a reason. We need to crack down on this. We need to listen to the border states where the governors there have some solutions and we need to get serious about that.

November 17, 2009 , 4:16PM Posted by | Afghanistan, Conservatism, Illegal Immigration, Iraq, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin | Comments Off on Rush Interview with Sarah Palin: National Security