To: pharmamom
Is fighting dirty incompatible with being a Christian and an American?
Only if you think fighting is a sporting event.
2 posted on 04 January 2009 01:18:07 by hinckley buzzard
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
The difference between us and them is that dirty fighting is their first choice of weapons, while we resort to dirty fighting as a last resort. There’s nothing wrong with getting down in the gutter to clean it out. The difference is they stay there, we get out when the job is done.
You will never win a war or an argument unless you use something the other side understands and appreciates, maybe even fears.
We are dealing with an enemy that embraces death as a way to paradise. They also believe that they can be denied paradise if they die under certain conditions. There’s nothing wrong with assuring them we will see to it that they die under those conditions if they mess with us.
My faith tells me that nothing can nothing can snatch me from the grasp of God’s love and salvation. I want no part of a faith whose god can’t assure my salvation regardless of what others do to me.
3 posted on 04 January 2009 01:18:51 by jwparkerjr (God Bless America!)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
I think there are many in Iran that would love to do this for us. They might even feel insulted if they were left out. I am sure they could use a little help.
4 posted on 04 January 2009 01:19:45 by ThomasThomas (I said nothing about grammar.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
This guy understands PC and all of it’s negative ramifications.
5 posted on 04 January 2009 01:20:40 by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
Not in my opinion.
Let's make a list:
Achmadinijad
Kim Jong il
Raul and Fidel Castro
Hu Jinato
Vlad Putin
Bashar Assad
Hugo Chavez
Juan Evo Morales (Bolivia)
Umar Hassan al Bashir (Sudan)
Teodoro Obiang Mbaso (Equatorial Guinea)
Than Shwe (Burma)
Mad Bob Mugabe (Zimbabwe)
Alexander Lukashenko (Belarus)
Faure Gnassingbe (Togo)
Joseph Kabila (Congo-Kinshasa)
Oh, there's plenty more where that came from, but just to get the ball rolling.
Any other suggestions? I just did this off the top of my head.
6 posted on 04 January 2009 01:21:36 by Owl_Eagle (In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: Owl_Eagle
Wow. I’m impressed. But that’s a short list; we don’t need to limit it to famous dudes. Let’s target all the death-talking imams in mosques all over the world. Maybe if the cult-of-death-inciters started turning up dead, they would all develop a sudden case of laryngitis.
7 posted on 04 January 2009 01:27:14 by pharmamom (Queen. Visit the Queendom: www.whenwearequeen.com)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
Yes-— fighting is fully compatible with being a Christian.
Many of the early Christian saints are pictured in full military gear.
Defending the faith against the dark forces of Communism or Islam is Christian indeed.
As for being compatible with being an American —it was until recent history— things have changed though unfortunately.
8 posted on 04 January 2009 01:28:43 by eleni121 (EN TOUTO NIKA!! + In this sign Conquer! +)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
Is fighting dirty incompatible with being a Christian and an American?
Reminds me of the saying, "Sometimes it is easier to ask for forgiveness rather than permission."
9 posted on 04 January 2009 01:28:45 by koraz
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
Comeon, man... Don’t you realize that more can be accomplished by talking with these guys?
And if you kill them, you can’t talk to them. Or as Major Strasser would say, “I’m afraid you will find the conversation a trifling one-sided. You see, Ugarte is dead.”
10 posted on 04 January 2009 01:29:09 by Brilliant
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: Owl_Eagle; TigersEye
Sounds like a a good start to me.
11 posted on 04 January 2009 01:29:43 by pandoraou812 (Don't play leapfrog with a unicorn! ...........^............)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
How is assasinating terrorist leaders and tyrants "dirty"? I'm also thinking about Chavez and ilk. It makes a lot more sense and is cheaper than waging wars. Assasinations, like the Israelis do, also spare the innocent/bring less civilian casualties.
Perception is one thing... "world opinion" and protester mobs will always screech about Israel/US fighting. By all means eliminating the enemy leadership and their capabilities to inflict harm (military-industrial capabilties) should be prime targets. Fact is that, thanks to advanced technology, civilian casualties are incomparably lower than during previous wars.
There is no one of consequence trying to "nuke and kill 'em all", short of the armchair general basement brigade calling for the nuking of each city in the Middle East and frothing their mouths at similar ridiculous fantasies... (I know that some comments are of cynical or sarcastic nature, or off-hand remarks signaling wearyness with the enemy, but still there are some who seem to think that killing two billion people is the ticket... these folks HAVE lost their humanity.)
12 posted on 04 January 2009 01:30:41 by SolidWood (Sarah Palin - Everything that is Sweetness and Light!)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: jwparkerjr
Well said.
13 posted on 04 January 2009 01:33:06 by rickmichaels (WHATCHA GONNA DO WHEN OBAMA'S TRUTH SQUADS RUN WILD ON YOU???)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
“target all the death-talking imams in mosques all over the world.”
.......starting here in the US
14 posted on 04 January 2009 01:34:07 by Vn_survivor_67-68 (CALL CONGRESSCRITTERS TOLL-FREE @ 1-800-965-4701)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
Explain to me why assassination of another country’s president is “dirty.” Are you equating dirty with immoral, or illegal or something else?
Then explain to me why we can never do anything dirty?
15 posted on 04 January 2009 01:35:09 by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
Practically speaking, many Americans have a problem with what amounts to targeting an essential part of the terrorist infrastructure: the instigators and financiers of terror.
At the onset of the War on Terror, we were faced with a great dilemma. Our enemies were dispersed throughout a dozen different nations, each and every one of which they could have violently destabilized or found some degree of sanctuary.
In a brilliant strategy, the US used both Afghanistan and Iraq to concentrate the very worst of these killers, to fight against our soldiers in conditions very favorable to us. This recognized that the vast majority did not have the “chutzpah” to leave their neighborhood, get training, and go to another country to commit terrorist acts. So once this group had been eliminated, it would be a long time before they could strike out again, perhaps a generation or more.
However, the US never did fully take the actions necessary to conclude this war, by eliminating its sponsors. These are villains all the way from some loudmouth Imam in a madrassa in Pakistan, to certain members of the Saud royal family.
Though President W. Bush tripled the size of SOCOM, which had expertly conducted the “Phoenix” program in Vietnam, with similar goals, and with great success; the US just could not bring itself to do so again. To eliminate a critical part of the international terrorist infrastructure.
To be clear, Iran does not fit very well into the al-Qaeda mold, because its problem, the desire for nuclear weapons that will solve all the problems they face, is truly a popular idea in Iran. Just eliminating their leaders will not eliminate the threat. Different means must be used.
But finally, the light has dawned, and the US is trying to systematically eliminate, through targeted assassinations, the leaders of both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. This has continued unabated for many months now, and it tearing the management of those organizations apart.
16 posted on 04 January 2009 01:35:20 by yefragetuwrabrumuy
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
Well, I for one am entirely opposed to this sort of thing.
As Americans, we're the ones are are supposed to show leadership in the world, and to set a higher standard for diplomacy, communication, and cooperation in the world.
It is us who must be a beacon of hope and peace in the world, and accordingly, we must reach out to our adversaries and find common ground with them for the common good.
As for the men on your list, it be just terrible if they were to start having tragic, unfortunate accidents or something. Oh, the horror...
17 posted on 04 January 2009 01:37:44 by OKSooner
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
Bobby and Jack Kennedy tried that with Fidel.
How well did that work out?
18 posted on 04 January 2009 01:43:30 by null and void (Petroglyphs. The original cliffs notes...)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
AMEN...and pass the ammo
19 posted on 04 January 2009 01:48:02 by hamburglar (Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: Secret Agent Man
Secret Agent Man,\
I don’t think the proposition is wrong. But don’t we have a law against assassination? And aren’t we hearing all sorts of namby-pamby BS from people shrieking about “torture” and “spying” and all?
I’m proposing that we can walk the line—from vigorous interrogations to assassination (of mullahs and imams and bankers and whomever is supporting these freaks) to wiretaps—without “losing” ourselves and our better nature. I think we need to be careful, and I think we need to have certain parameters (no, we won’t nuke Mecca), but I think we are getting so tangled up in worrying about our character and our “image” that we are going to lose this war.
Those people who whine about civil rights and our image think they will never face the enemy, but they are wrong. But I think only people of character can hold the tension between doing what needs to be done and letting go of it when it is over.
20 posted on 04 January 2009 01:52:45 by pharmamom (Queen. Visit the Queendom: www.whenwearequeen.com)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies>
To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
the desire for nuclear weapons that will solve all the problems they face, is truly a popular idea in Iran. Just eliminating their leaders will not eliminate the threat.
Not quite so. The regime propaganda is that the nuclear power is for peaceful purposes. Those gullibe Iranians who buy the regime propaganda will nod in agreement and say that peaceful nuclear power is their right...
It's not the hope for "nuclear power solving all their problems", it's rather about showing the world that they can keep up with the rest technologically. It's an inferiority complex...
Iranians smart enough to see through the regime propaganda realize that this isn't about energy but about nuclear arms... Short of the nutjob Baseej, Hezbolahi and illiterate mobs, no Iranian has the desire to go to war over the question of nukes. And if given the choice of freedom or nukes, I have not the slightest doubt that most would pick the former.
And a regime change most definately would take care of the danger of nukes.
Given the scenario that the mullah regime is removed succesfully by some means, there is no question that they would be replaced by a more concilatory government. No khomeinist regime = no threat.
You are however right insofar that regime change ALONE isn't enough. Regime change has to be coupled with the elimination of the WMD program. Regime change in Iran and eliminating their strike capabilties by violent and non-violent means has to be the prime goal.
21 posted on 04 January 2009 01:53:11 by SolidWood (Sarah Palin - Everything that is Sweetness and Light!)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
Am I a Really Bad Person for Thinking This?
All depends on who you ask. I’d much prefer the CIA does an infinitely better job of undermining the Iranian governmetn there so that the people are free to fix this problem for us but if it comes down to a choice between whacking Imonajihad and having an Iranian nuke? I’d go for the whacking.
22 posted on 04 January 2009 01:53:27 by bpjam (GOP is 3 - 0 in elections after Nov 4th. You Can Smell the Rally !!!)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: OKSooner
Off topic...are you gearing up for the big game? (Or are you an OSU fan? Even so, I know you’ll be cheering for the Sooners!) My husband is from Bartlesville, and he is getting into football mode so that he can fully appreciate the big game. I’m plannning to leave the house with all the kids because the decibel level reaches unbearable heights.
23 posted on 04 January 2009 01:54:26 by pharmamom (Queen. Visit the Queendom: www.whenwearequeen.com)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies>
Comment #24 Removed by Moderator
To: pharmamom
While it is easy to identify the possible targets, Ahmadinijad, Mugabe, Chavez, Castro(s) and agree that the world would be better of without them, it should not be as a matter of state policy, the assassination of heads of foreign state(s). For to do so, would invite the same.
25 posted on 04 January 2009 02:03:24 by Ouderkirk (Democrats: the party of Slavery, Segregation, Sodomy and Sedition)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
We fought dirty against the Brits, the Barbary Pirates, the Brits again, the Mexicans, each other in the Civil War, Spain, Germany, Japan, Germany and the Commie Bastards in the USSR. Fighting dirty is just a P.C. term for out-thinking and out-fighting your opponent. Killing genocidal maniacs is not even fighting dirty.
26 posted on 04 January 2009 02:04:53 by ExpatGator (Extending logic since 1961.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: Owl_Eagle
PJ O'Rouke has a head start:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1300381/posts27 posted on 04 January 2009 02:05:27 by castlebrew (Gun control means hitting where you intended to!)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies>
To: pandoraou812
I think that should be our battle plan, and I have no fear of us “losing our humanity” in the process.
In the context of war the definition of compassion is ending the barbarism in the most effective and efficient manner possible IMO. The question shouldn't be "are the means acceptable to the sensibilities of peace loving people?" The question should be "What means are necessary to pacify the minds of the barbarians?" And not temporarily either. The war is not won until the enemy has completely converted to a mindset of peace. If the enemy's mindset is so entrenched in barbarism that only death will bring them to a state of peace then so be it.
28 posted on 04 January 2009 02:05:59 by TigersEye (I threw my shoe at Mohammed and hit Allah in the butt.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies>
You do realize that by even putting the Messiah’s initials up on a thread that is talking about knocking off the bad guys...you have opened up yourself (and FR, meaning JimRob) for possible visits from the Secret Service?
I will remind everyone...at NO time should ANYONE here EVER even suggest the killing of ANY public official on this site. It doesn’t matter if they are all low-down, disgusting, dirty, thieving traitors...to make any suggestion that a public official should be killed (and ESPECIALLY the President) constitutes a threat, and can be taken VERY seriously by law enforcement officials.
The previous has been a public service announcement.
29 posted on 04 January 2009 02:06:55 by hoagy62 (Tidings of comfort and joy are now too expensive.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
Jack Bauer is right behind you.
30 posted on 04 January 2009 02:16:52 by Fawn (I want my bailout too!!!!)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
Still True today.
Anything less, and the cancer of slime returns.
31 posted on 04 January 2009 02:24:07 by rawcatslyentist (Proud non productive worker under directive 10-289)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: SolidWood
I disagree. Interviews with the “Iranian on the street” show the popularity of Iran having nuclear weapons, not just nuclear power.
There are two bad influences, here. The first is that by and large, Tehran missed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and their aftermath. Iran is in much the same position that Japan was in prior to WWII. They know that they should dominate their region, and they want their “place in the sun”. And both Japan and Iran saw and see militarism as the way to get their wishes.
The primary barrier to what they want is the United States, again, like the Japanese. American aircraft carriers block their path.
But nuclear weapons are like Aladdin’s djinn, granting all their wishes. They no longer have to fear invasion, being xenophobic for centuries. Others will have to respect them. They can be as forceful in world affairs as they want.
And there are other undercurrents to their desires, such as the return of the 12th Imam, and the desire to form the center of a Shiite Crescent (which no other Shiites have the slightest interest in.)
Years ago, I proposed that the US create a satellite TV channel just for Iran, to do nothing but air “nuclear horror” movies, documentaries, etc. Just to educate the “Iranian on the street” that the djinn they so crave is the blackest of black djinns, who will not grant them wishes, but drag them down to hell.
32 posted on 04 January 2009 02:24:45 by yefragetuwrabrumuy
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
Not if it is for survival, or minimizing the death rate.
If assassinating Hitler prevented WW2, killing Hitler would not be immoral. Same concept with Iran.
33 posted on 04 January 2009 02:30:40 by tbw2 (Freeper sci-fi - "Humanity's Edge" - on amazon.com)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
“Is fighting dirty incompatible with being a Christian and an American?”
Yes.
However, I see nothing in the Bible that says we must allow someone to murder us, or to force us to convert to another religion. Maybe I’m just not a very good Christian. Killing those who call for the deaths of those who will not convert seems quite reasonable to me.
34 posted on 04 January 2009 02:47:57 by Old Student (We have a name for the people who think indiscriminate killing is fine. They're called "The Bad Guys)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
To: pharmamom
Deciding beforehand that you could kill someone,and "fighting dirty" reflexively, in order to protect yourself, are two different things.
35 posted on 04 January 2009 02:53:20 by airborne (God answers all prayers. Just some times the answer is "no".)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
