Some Michael Scheurer for your Sunday morning

[CID1990]

http://non-intervention.com/576/the-pas ... n-for-war/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What provokes violent responses in Muslims?

[houndawg]

http://non-intervention.com/576/the-pas ... n-for-war/

What provokes violent responses in Muslims?

People who believe in the unprovable existence of a different invisible being?

[native]

http://non-intervention.com/576/the-pas ... n-for-war/

What provokes violent responses in Muslims?

According to Schuerer, "We are being attacked by Muslims for what we do and not for how we live or what we think.

What Scheurer fails to come to grips with is that what we do is allow freedom of speech, even against religion.

We allow Mo to be caricatured, and they respond with masive violence. We allow a Koran to be burned, and they respond with massive violence. We open schools for girls and they throw acid on the girls faces. Theo van Gogh was assassinated for making a factual film on the shameful abuse of Muslim women by Muslim men in Europe.

"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me," unless, of course I am muslim. Neither the muslim street nor muslim institutions have proven capable of thoughtful, balanced, rational discourse outside of the one-sided concepts of sharia. For the most part, muslims only support "free" speech that supports their political agenda.

[kalm]

Neither the muslim street nor muslim institutions are incapable of thoughtful, balanced, rational discourse.

Other than the 90% who are.

[houndawg]

http://non-intervention.com/576/the-pas ... n-for-war/

What provokes violent responses in Muslims?

According to Schuerer, "We are being attacked by Muslims for what we do and not for how we live or what we think.

What Scheurer fails to come to grips with is that what we do is allow freedom of speech, even against religion.

We allow Mo to be caricatured, and they respond with masive violence. We allow a Koran to be burned, and they resopnd with massive violence.

Theo van Gogh was assassinated for making a factual film on the shameful abuse of Muslim women by Muslim men in Europe.

"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me," unless, of course I am muslim. Neither the muslim street nor muslim institutions are incapable of thoughtful, balanced, rational discourse.

I'm not sure if you just don't get it or if you just can't get it.

[native]

According to Schuerer, "We are being attacked by Muslims for what we do and not for how we live or what we think.

What Scheurer fails to come to grips with is that what we do is allow freedom of speech, even against religion.

We allow Mo to be caricatured, and they respond with masive violence. We allow a Koran to be burned, and they resopnd with massive violence.

Theo van Gogh was assassinated for making a factual film on the shameful abuse of Muslim women by Muslim men in Europe.

"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me," unless, of course I am muslim. Neither the muslim street nor muslim institutions are incapable of thoughtful, balanced, rational discourse.

I'm not sure if you just don't get it or if you just can't get it.

I get it that muslims hold a different world view than we do, and I agree with some of Scheurer's analysis.

What I don't get, dawg, is why you allow radical islamo-fascists to define your expectations and understanding based on their standards.

[CID1990]

http://non-intervention.com/576/the-pas ... n-for-war/

What provokes violent responses in Muslims?

According to Schuerer, "We are being attacked by Muslims for what we do and not for how we live or what we think.

What Scheurer fails to come to grips with is that what we do is allow freedom of speech, even against religion.

We allow Mo to be caricatured, and they respond with masive violence. We allow a Koran to be burned, and they respond with massive violence. We open schools for girls and they throw acid on the girls faces. Theo van Gogh was assassinated for making a factual film on the shameful abuse of Muslim women by Muslim men in Europe.

"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me," unless, of course I am muslim. Neither the muslim street nor muslim institutions are incapable of thoughtful, balanced, rational discourse. For the most part, muslims only support "free" speech that supports their political agenda.

Native, Scheurer does have a grip on precisely why the Islamists attack America, and he is correct in stating that it has nothing to do with the fact that our women wear Daisy Dukes and we vote for our leaders. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been very clear about why they attacked us on 9-11. Scheurer probably knows more about what motivates Bin Laden and Al Qaeda than most Americans, you and I included.

When you refer to acid being thrown in the faces of schoolgirls, you are falling into that recent trap that has been laid by the ruling elite in this country. Why is it that as Americans we owe safety and security to the rest of the world? I could give two sh!ts about schoolgirls in Mudistan, because attacks on schoolgirls in those countries, although despicable, are not attacks on America. Let China or France deal with it. Not one bit of American blood should be spilled to protect backwater sh!tholes where the people don't give enough of a sh!t about themselves to do something about some Bangladeshi tossing acid on a woman.

When Al Qaeda harms Americans, then we had better be prepared to repay them tenfold. They attack us because we are in places like Saudi Arabia. Should we be? Is Saudi Arabia crucial to our national interests? What about Kuwait? The UAE? If they are, then we should be there, fine. But if being there provokes people like Bin Laden, then we had better be ready to murder those motherfvckers by the bushel, and quite frankly Americans don't have the stomach for that.

[native]

According to Schuerer, "We are being attacked by Muslims for what we do and not for how we live or what we think.

What Scheurer fails to come to grips with is that what we do is allow freedom of speech, even against religion.

We allow Mo to be caricatured, and they respond with masive violence. We allow a Koran to be burned, and they respond with massive violence. We open schools for girls and they throw acid on the girls faces. Theo van Gogh was assassinated for making a factual film on the shameful abuse of Muslim women by Muslim men in Europe.

"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me," unless, of course I am muslim. Neither the muslim street nor muslim institutions are incapable of thoughtful, balanced, rational discourse. For the most part, muslims only support "free" speech that supports their political agenda.

Native, Scheurer does have a grip on precisely why the Islamists attack America, and he is correct in stating that it has nothing to do with the fact that our women wear Daisy Dukes and we vote for our leaders. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been very clear about why they attacked us on 9-11. Scheurer probably knows more about what motivates Bin Laden and Al Qaeda than most Americans, you and I included.

When you refer to acid being thrown in the faces of schoolgirls, you are falling into that recent trap that has been laid by the ruling elite in this country. Why is it that as Americans we owe safety and security to the rest of the world? I could give two sh!ts about schoolgirls in Mudistan, because attacks on schoolgirls in those countries, although despicable, are not attacks on America. Let China or France deal with it. Not one bit of American blood should be spilled to protect backwater sh!tholes where the people don't give enough of a sh!t about themselves to do something about some Bangladeshi tossing acid on a woman.

When Al Qaeda harms Americans, then we had better be prepared to repay them tenfold. They attack us because we are in places like Saudi Arabia. Should we be? Is Saudi Arabia crucial to our national interests? What about Kuwait? The UAE? If they are, then we should be there, fine. But if being there provokes people like Bin Laden, then we had better be ready to murder those motherfvckers by the bushel, and quite frankly Americans don't have the stomach for that.

All reasonable questions, Cid.

The acid tells me who they are. So does the marching in the street over a cartoon but not a suicide bomb. So does the mosque at ground zero but no churches to be found in most Islamic places.

Until a "moderate" American muslim can stand up for free speech for everyone and not just themselves, respond to a crass cartoon with a logical argument instead of misbehaving, stand up firmly and not pro forma against "honor killings" and terrorism, understand and articulate why sharia law can never be appropriate in America under the Constitution, and argue for a church in Mecca just as strongly as they argue for a mosque at ground zero, they cannot consider themselves "moderate" or even "one of us."

Those thousands of American muslims who do so are welcome as my neighbor and countrymen. Those who do not can go straight to hell. Overseas muslims who choose to trifle with Americans can also go straight to hell.

I know we cannot do everything for everyone, but I also tire of standing by and turning the other cheek while some innocent schoolgirl gets acid thrown on her face, or while a thousand year old Buddhist treasure is blown off of the face of a mountain, or a reporter has his or her throat slit, or innocent hikers are thrown in jail. If we never stand up for anyone, we will someday be too weak to stand up for ourselves.

I respect the sincerity of the handful of principled, common sense and responsible neo-isolationists and libertarians such as yourself who have done and are willing to do the difficult thing just because it is the right thing. However, I do not respect the fat, dumb, lazy, and cowardly jack-offs who agree with you and Scheuerman on this issue only for reasons of their own comfort and safety.

I can think that you and Scheuer are responsible, reasonable, intelligent, informed and thoughtful without accepting all the same conclusions. I can also take the time to understand my enemies' motivations without accepting them as reasonable or valid or or accepting al qaeda on its own terms.

I agree that we should not get into the nation-building business, that we need to become more self-sufficient so as not to be so dependent on allies of convenience, and that we need to choose our allies more wisely, but we are fools if we do not get into the retribution business.

[Appaholic]

All reasonable questions, Cid.

The acid tells me who they are. So does the marching in the street over a cartoon but not a suicide bomb. So does the mosque at ground zero but no churches to be found in most Islamic places.

Until a "moderate" American muslim can stand up for free speech for everyone and not just themselves, respond to a crass cartoon with a logical argument instead of misbehaving, stand up firmly and not pro forma against "honor killings" and terrorism, understand and articulate why sharia law can never be appropriate in America under the Constitution, and argue for a church in Mecca just as strongly as they argue for a mosque at ground zero, they cannot consider themselves "moderate" or even "one of us."

Those thousands of American muslims who do so are welcome as my neighbor and countrymen. Those who do not can go straight to hell. Overseas muslims who choose to trifle with Americans can also go straight to hell.

Wow, Native, agree with you 100% here (I think...scary...)

I know we cannot do everything for everyone, but I also tire of standing by and turning the other cheek while some innocent schoolgirl gets acid thrown on her face, or while a thousand year old Buddhist treasure is blown off of the face of a mountain, or a reporter has his or her throat slit, or innocent hikers are thrown in jail. If we never stand up for anyone, we will someday be too weak to stand up for ourselves.

I respect the sincerity of the handful of principled, common sense and responsible neo-isolationists and libertarians such as yourself who have done and are willing to do the difficult thing just because it is the right thing. However, I do not respect the fat, dumb, lazy, and cowardly jack-offs who agree with you and Scheuerman on this issue only for reasons of their own comfort and safety.

...and then, this. ..should have stopped while you were behind. Perhaps the "lazy" people aren't so much saying we shouldnt be involved in "policing" the world since we obviously haven't taken care of our own yet. I've never understood why person's such as yourself have no problem sending our people over there to fix their problems when they don't care enough to fix their own problems & we do not (apparantly) have the resources (or will) to fix our own problems. This isn't about retribution...I agree 100% that if our interests are attacked overseas, we should throw the hammer down 100 times more than we got from them. However, there is a difference in responding to a threat to our interests & sticking our nose into cultures where it doesn't belong....if a girl in Shitistan gets acid thrown in her face for goign to school & her own father won't seek retributution or "handle his business" himself, then why the fok should we risk an American life to protect her....We live in a dangerous world full of threats. We shoul respond to threats that are clear & present as opposed to those perceived "threats" that we revile, but do not actually threaten OUR country's security.

[native]

... I've never understood why person's such as yourself have no problem sending our people over there to fix their problems when they don't care enough to fix their own problems & we do not (apparantly) have the resources (or will) to fix our own problems. ....

Point taken.

Here is some insight into "do-gooders" such as myself: I am willing to help those who want to help themselves, but not those who are unwilling to help themselves. For sure since the 60's and probably since the twenties, we have done more harm than good with our domestic social programs. Maaaaaaybe we break even or get a little ahead on our interventions overseas, but at least it's easier to find people of good will overseas who are willing to help themselves.

[Appaholic]

Wow, Native, agree with you 100% here (I think...scary...)



...and then, this. ..should have stopped while you were behind. Perhaps the "lazy" people aren't so much saying we shouldnt be involved in "policing" the world since we obviously haven't taken care of our own yet. I've never understood why person's such as yourself have no problem sending our people over there to fix their problems when they don't care enough to fix their own problems & we do not (apparantly) have the resources (or will) to fix our own problems. This isn't about retribution...I agree 100% that if our interests are attacked overseas, we should throw the hammer down 100 times more than we got from them. However, there is a difference in responding to a threat to our interests & sticking our nose into cultures where it doesn't belong....if a girl in Shitistan gets acid thrown in her face for goign to school & her own father won't seek retributution or "handle his business" himself, then why the fok should we risk an American life to protect her....We live in a dangerous world full of threats. We shoul respond to threats that are clear & present as opposed to those perceived "threats" that we revile, but do not actually threaten OUR country's security.

Believe it or not, my friend, I am not perfect!

Seriously, Appy, I consider you principled, not lazy or cowardly. Don't wear the damn shoe if it does not fit!!!

I also agree with you that just because I feel sympathy for the "girl in shitistan" does not mean I want the U.S. to invade her country. But there are lots of options between invasion and isolationism. ...Like stop rolling over at the U.N.

Fair enough. Agree on the UN. We should detain Ahmedikhed in NY for violating UN sanctions on Nclear development. Don't give two shits for the hikers....go hiking in Iraq near the Iranian border with no regard to travel warnings & advisory's during a war, you're on your own....

[CID1990]

I would agree that there are more than a few people who would agree with Scheurer out of fear or just general wishy washiness. I would encourage anyone who would do so to read "Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq". It was Scheurer's book right after Imperial Hubris.

There is no way to take him out of context after reading it, especially the parts where he suggest what should be done with countries like Afghanistan (under the Taliban).

[kalm]

Native, Scheurer does have a grip on precisely why the Islamists attack America, and he is correct in stating that it has nothing to do with the fact that our women wear Daisy Dukes and we vote for our leaders. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been very clear about why they attacked us on 9-11. Scheurer probably knows more about what motivates Bin Laden and Al Qaeda than most Americans, you and I included.

When you refer to acid being thrown in the faces of schoolgirls, you are falling into that recent trap that has been laid by the ruling elite in this country. Why is it that as Americans we owe safety and security to the rest of the world? I could give two sh!ts about schoolgirls in Mudistan, because attacks on schoolgirls in those countries, although despicable, are not attacks on America. Let China or France deal with it. Not one bit of American blood should be spilled to protect backwater sh!tholes where the people don't give enough of a sh!t about themselves to do something about some Bangladeshi tossing acid on a woman.

When Al Qaeda harms Americans, then we had better be prepared to repay them tenfold. They attack us because we are in places like Saudi Arabia. Should we be? Is Saudi Arabia crucial to our national interests? What about Kuwait? The UAE? If they are, then we should be there, fine. But if being there provokes people like Bin Laden, then we had better be ready to murder those motherfvckers by the bushel, and quite frankly Americans don't have the stomach for that.

All reasonable questions, Cid.

The acid tells me who they are. So does the marching in the street over a cartoon but not a suicide bomb. So does the mosque at ground zero but no churches to be found in most Islamic places.

Until a "moderate" American muslim can stand up for free speech for everyone and not just themselves, respond to a crass cartoon with a logical argument instead of misbehaving, stand up firmly and not pro forma against "honor killings" and terrorism, understand and articulate why sharia law can never be appropriate in America under the Constitution, and argue for a church in Mecca just as strongly as they argue for a mosque at ground zero, they cannot consider themselves "moderate" or even "one of us."

Those thousands of American muslims who do so are welcome as my neighbor and countrymen. Those who do not can go straight to hell. Overseas muslims who choose to trifle with Americans can also go straight to hell.

I know we cannot do everything for everyone, but I also tire of standing by and turning the other cheek while some innocent schoolgirl gets acid thrown on her face, or while a thousand year old Buddhist treasure is blown off of the face of a mountain, or a reporter has his or her throat slit, or innocent hikers are thrown in jail. If we never stand up for anyone, we will someday be too weak to stand up for ourselves.

I respect the sincerity of the handful of principled, common sense and responsible neo-isolationists and libertarians such as yourself who have done and are willing to do the difficult thing just because it is the right thing. However, I do not respect the fat, dumb, lazy, and cowardly jack-offs who agree with you and Scheuerman on this issue only for reasons of their own comfort and safety.

I can think that you and Scheuer are responsible, reasonable, intelligent, informed and thoughtful without accepting all the same conclusions. I can also take the time to understand my enemies' motivations without accepting them as reasonable or valid or or accepting al qaeda on its own terms.

I agree that we should not get into the nation-building business, that we need to become more self-sufficient so as not to be so dependent on allies of convenience, and that we need to choose our allies more wisely, but we are fools if we do not get into the retribution business.

Native have you red "Three Cups of Tea" yet? If you haven't, what you'll find is that the muslim on the street - well in this case on the mountain goat track - isn't neccessarily the murderous, al-quaeda supporting bastard you think he is. And the woman, even less so - which is half the population. Many muslims are too poor to worry about international politics much less take up arms as they are litterally spending 90% of their time putting food on the table. Then there's the sufi's, like the immam trying to erect the ground zero mosque who has spoken out against terrrorism, who are the more liberal, peaceful side of the religion.

[native]

I would agree that there are more than a few people who would agree with Scheurer out of fear or just general wishy washiness. I would encourage anyone who would do so to read "Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq". It was Scheurer's book right after Imperial Hubris.

There is no way to take him out of context after reading it, especially the parts where he suggest what should be done with countries like Afghanistan (under the Taliban).

Thanks for the reading recommendations. "Imperial Hubris" is already in my collection somewhere - been moving latley.

[native]

All reasonable questions, Cid.

The acid tells me who they are. So does the marching in the street over a cartoon but not a suicide bomb. So does the mosque at ground zero but no churches to be found in most Islamic places.

Until a "moderate" American muslim can stand up for free speech for everyone and not just themselves, respond to a crass cartoon with a logical argument instead of misbehaving, stand up firmly and not pro forma against "honor killings" and terrorism, understand and articulate why sharia law can never be appropriate in America under the Constitution, and argue for a church in Mecca just as strongly as they argue for a mosque at ground zero, they cannot consider themselves "moderate" or even "one of us."

Those thousands of American muslims who do so are welcome as my neighbor and countrymen. Those who do not can go straight to hell. Overseas muslims who choose to trifle with Americans can also go straight to hell.

I know we cannot do everything for everyone, but I also tire of standing by and turning the other cheek while some innocent schoolgirl gets acid thrown on her face, or while a thousand year old Buddhist treasure is blown off of the face of a mountain, or a reporter has his or her throat slit, or innocent hikers are thrown in jail. If we never stand up for anyone, we will someday be too weak to stand up for ourselves.

I respect the sincerity of the handful of principled, common sense and responsible neo-isolationists and libertarians such as yourself who have done and are willing to do the difficult thing just because it is the right thing. However, I do not respect the fat, dumb, lazy, and cowardly jack-offs who agree with you and Scheuerman on this issue only for reasons of their own comfort and safety.

I can think that you and Scheuer are responsible, reasonable, intelligent, informed and thoughtful without accepting all the same conclusions. I can also take the time to understand my enemies' motivations without accepting them as reasonable or valid or or accepting al qaeda on its own terms.

I agree that we should not get into the nation-building business, that we need to become more self-sufficient so as not to be so dependent on allies of convenience, and that we need to choose our allies more wisely, but we are fools if we do not get into the retribution business.

Native have you red "Three Cups of Tea" yet? If you haven't, what you'll find is that the muslim on the street - well in this case on the mountain goat track - isn't neccessarily the murderous, al-quaeda supporting bastard you think he is. And the woman, even less so - which is half the population. Many muslims are too poor to worry about international politics much less take up arms as they are litterally spending 90% of their time putting food on the table. Then there's the sufi's, like the immam trying to erect the ground zero mosque who has spoken out against terrrorism, who are the more liberal, peaceful side of the religion.

Thank you for the reading recommendation, kalm!

I am not necessarily impressed with someone who "speaks out against terrorism." Sometimes the sincere expressions of peace are like the sincere expressions of regret from a criminal caught red-handed. One must always listen carefully to the words and observe the actions.

The "muslim street" means different things in different places. Unlike the "Arab street" in urban areas like Cairo and Baghdad, Afghanistan is a whole 'nuther place. Many of the remote tribesmen in Afghanistan are still living in another century and follow hospitable customs such as melmastia.

Sufis are not necessarily more peaceful than any other muslim. Building a mosque on the site of the 9/11 attacks is a blatantly provocative action of conquest and proselytization, not a peaceful action intended to build bridges of cross-cultural understanding. It is like building a mosque on Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. It is like making a mosque out of the "Hagia Sophia," the Eastern Orthodox basilica in Constantinople, Eastern Orthodox.

[Appaholic]

Building a mosque on the site of the 9/11 attacks is a blatantly provocative action of conquest and proselytization, not a peaceful action intended to build bridges of cross-cultural understanding. It is like building a mosque on Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. It is like making a mosque out of the "Hagia Sophia," the Eastern Orthodox basilica in Constantinople, Eastern Orthodox.

Actually, it's not. Building a mosque 3 blocks from the site of the WTC is nothing like building a mosque on the actual site of Soloman's Temple in Jerusalem. Propagating this fallacy is akin to muslims claiming a cartoon caricature of Mohammed is a personal attack upon Islam.

[native]

Building a mosque on the site of the 9/11 attacks is a blatantly provocative action of conquest and proselytization, not a peaceful action intended to build bridges of cross-cultural understanding. It is like building a mosque on Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. It is like making a mosque out of the "Hagia Sophia," the Eastern Orthodox basilica in Constantinople, Eastern Orthodox.

Actually, it's not. Building a mosque 3 blocks from the site of the WTC is nothing like building a mosque on the actual site of Soloman's Temple in Jerusalem. Propagating this fallacy is akin to muslims claiming a cartoon caricature of Mohammed is a personal attack upon Islam.

We disagree, Appy. I appreciate the distinction you draw. Your astute observation weakens my comparison, but that doesn't make the comparison a fallacy.

A cartoon caricature is indeed a direct attack on Islam. It is a well deserved direct attack on a cruel ideology that is so brittle it cannot withstand criticism.

Rauf's words and actions demonstrate that there has been no sensitive, cross cultural outreach. The Ground Zero mosque remains a blatantly provocative action of conquest and proselytization, whether it is on the site of the World Trade Center, three inches away, or three blocks away. The difference between Rauf and the conquerors of Jerusalem and Constantinople is to be found only in the relatively weak position of Rauf in terms of military and political might.

The BEST that could possibly be said of Rauf's mosque project is that it is a project of self aggrandizement and cultural justification. Small praise, indeed.

[Cap'n Cat]

Actually, it's not. Building a mosque 3 blocks from the site of the WTC is nothing like building a mosque on the actual site of Soloman's Temple in Jerusalem. Propagating this fallacy is akin to muslims claiming a cartoon caricature of Mohammed is a personal attack upon Islam.

We disagree, Appy. I appreciate the distinction you draw, but that doesn't make the comparison a fallacy.

You disagree, but he still owns you in this one.

[native]

We disagree, Appy. I appreciate the distinction you draw, but that doesn't make the comparison a fallacy.

You disagree, but he still owns you in this one.

Thank you for being civilized, Cap. Still full of fruit, but civilized.

[houndawg]

According to Schuerer, "We are being attacked by Muslims for what we do and not for how we live or what we think.

What Scheurer fails to come to grips with is that what we do is allow freedom of speech, even against religion.

We allow Mo to be caricatured, and they respond with masive violence. We allow a Koran to be burned, and they respond with massive violence. We open schools for girls and they throw acid on the girls faces. Theo van Gogh was assassinated for making a factual film on the shameful abuse of Muslim women by Muslim men in Europe.

"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me," unless, of course I am muslim. Neither the muslim street nor muslim institutions are incapable of thoughtful, balanced, rational discourse. For the most part, muslims only support "free" speech that supports their political agenda.

Native, Scheurer does have a grip on precisely why the Islamists attack America, and he is correct in stating that it has nothing to do with the fact that our women wear Daisy Dukes and we vote for our leaders. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been very clear about why they attacked us on 9-11. Scheurer probably knows more about what motivates Bin Laden and Al Qaeda than most Americans, you and I included.

When you refer to acid being thrown in the faces of schoolgirls, you are falling into that recent trap that has been laid by the ruling elite in this country. Why is it that as Americans we owe safety and security to the rest of the world? I could give two sh!ts about schoolgirls in Mudistan, because attacks on schoolgirls in those countries, although despicable, are not attacks on America. Let China or France deal with it. Not one bit of American blood should be spilled to protect backwater sh!tholes where the people don't give enough of a sh!t about themselves to do something about some Bangladeshi tossing acid on a woman.

When Al Qaeda harms Americans, then we had better be prepared to repay them tenfold. They attack us because we are in places like Saudi Arabia. Should we be? Is Saudi Arabia crucial to our national interests? What about Kuwait? The UAE? If they are, then we should be there, fine. But if being there provokes people like Bin Laden, then we had better be ready to murder those motherfvckers by the bushel, and quite frankly Americans don't have the stomach for that.

As things stand, yes, they are. Should they be? Does it have to be this way? Fvckno!

Maybe what you see as lack of stomach in Americans is actually lack of stomach for killing innocent civilians.

Because that is who will be getting killed by the bushel while the wealthiest American families continue to do business with the likes of the bin Ladens and the House of Saud. It is the same old story of propping up any brutally oppressive dictator who says he isn't a communist and training his secret police in how to torture civilians. And then we scratch our heads and wonder why them ragheads don't believe us when we tell them how our system is the answer to their problems.

[kalm]

Native, Scheurer does have a grip on precisely why the Islamists attack America, and he is correct in stating that it has nothing to do with the fact that our women wear Daisy Dukes and we vote for our leaders. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been very clear about why they attacked us on 9-11. Scheurer probably knows more about what motivates Bin Laden and Al Qaeda than most Americans, you and I included.

When you refer to acid being thrown in the faces of schoolgirls, you are falling into that recent trap that has been laid by the ruling elite in this country. Why is it that as Americans we owe safety and security to the rest of the world? I could give two sh!ts about schoolgirls in Mudistan, because attacks on schoolgirls in those countries, although despicable, are not attacks on America. Let China or France deal with it. Not one bit of American blood should be spilled to protect backwater sh!tholes where the people don't give enough of a sh!t about themselves to do something about some Bangladeshi tossing acid on a woman.

When Al Qaeda harms Americans, then we had better be prepared to repay them tenfold. They attack us because we are in places like Saudi Arabia. Should we be? Is Saudi Arabia crucial to our national interests? What about Kuwait? The UAE? If they are, then we should be there, fine. But if being there provokes people like Bin Laden, then we had better be ready to murder those motherfvckers by the bushel, and quite frankly Americans don't have the stomach for that.

As things stand, yes, they are. Should they be? Does it have to be this way? Fvckno!

Maybe what you see as lack of stomach in Americans is actually lack of stomach for killing innocent civilians.

Because that is who will be getting killed by the bushel while the wealthiest American families continue to do business with the likes of the bin Ladens and the House of Saud. It is the same old story of propping up any brutally oppressive dictator who says he isn't a communist and training his secret police in how to torture civilians. And then we scratch our heads and wonder why them ragheads don't believe us when we tell them how our system is the answer to their problems.

In case you can't read it the list in order from left to right goes:

Ft. Hood Casualties, 9/11 casualties, US Casualties in Afghanistan/Iraq, civilian casualties in Afghanistan, civilian casualties in Iraq

[houndawg]

As things stand, yes, they are. Should they be? Does it have to be this way? Fvckno!

Maybe what you see as lack of stomach in Americans is actually lack of stomach for killing innocent civilians.

Because that is who will be getting killed by the bushel while the wealthiest American families continue to do business with the likes of the bin Ladens and the House of Saud. It is the same old story of propping up any brutally oppressive dictator who says he isn't a communist and training his secret police in how to torture civilians. And then we scratch our heads and wonder why them ragheads don't believe us when we tell them how our system is the answer to their problems.

In case you can't read it the list in order from left to right goes:

Ft. Hood Casualties, 9/11 casualties, US Casualties in Afghanistan/Iraq, civilian casualties in Afghanistan, civilian casualties in Iraq

My bad. Looks like we already are killing them by the bushel.

[CID1990]

Native, Scheurer does have a grip on precisely why the Islamists attack America, and he is correct in stating that it has nothing to do with the fact that our women wear Daisy Dukes and we vote for our leaders. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been very clear about why they attacked us on 9-11. Scheurer probably knows more about what motivates Bin Laden and Al Qaeda than most Americans, you and I included.

When you refer to acid being thrown in the faces of schoolgirls, you are falling into that recent trap that has been laid by the ruling elite in this country. Why is it that as Americans we owe safety and security to the rest of the world? I could give two sh!ts about schoolgirls in Mudistan, because attacks on schoolgirls in those countries, although despicable, are not attacks on America. Let China or France deal with it. Not one bit of American blood should be spilled to protect backwater sh!tholes where the people don't give enough of a sh!t about themselves to do something about some Bangladeshi tossing acid on a woman.

When Al Qaeda harms Americans, then we had better be prepared to repay them tenfold. They attack us because we are in places like Saudi Arabia. Should we be? Is Saudi Arabia crucial to our national interests? What about Kuwait? The UAE? If they are, then we should be there, fine. But if being there provokes people like Bin Laden, then we had better be ready to murder those motherfvckers by the bushel, and quite frankly Americans don't have the stomach for that.

As things stand, yes, they are. Should they be? Does it have to be this way? Fvckno!

Maybe what you see as lack of stomach in Americans is actually lack of stomach for killing innocent civilians.

Because that is who will be getting killed by the bushel while the wealthiest American families continue to do business with the likes of the bin Ladens and the House of Saud. It is the same old story of propping up any brutally oppressive dictator who says he isn't a communist and training his secret police in how to torture civilians. And then we scratch our heads and wonder why them ragheads don't believe us when we tell them how .our system is the answer to their problems

Our system ISN'T the answer to their problems. That is the point, which you missed in spectacular fashion.

I don't give a sh!t what kind of government Afghanistan practices. I don't care if they are Muslim or Hindu, or if they practice bestiality or ancestor worship. None of those things affect Americans or America. The only thing people understand... the only REAL motivation to restrain yourself from hurting other people is the ASSURED knowledge that if you attack this tribe or that tribe is that they will come back and murder your A$$ to the very last woman and child. The upside of that is that they will also know that you you leave them the fvck alone, they will do the same to you.

I guess I am just not as elevated as you are... as enlightened... but then there were lots of enlightened people killed on 9-11 and their world views did not get them fvck all. They still had to jump out of the top of those buildings while their skin crisped off.

Too many Americans get pissed and full of national self-loathing over why we were attacked on 9-11. I say the reasons we got attacked are insignificant as long as we mark a clear deterrent to a repeat performance. We have the capability to orphan every child and widow every wife over there. We should demonstrate it a little more forcefully and THEN we'll see how much the 'radical' Muslims are bent on seeing Allah.

Scheurer agrees that we should go in there with a massive display of real force, and then get the fvck out. I am completely on board with that. In fact, I don't think it is too late to do so now. We have a surge of troops over there and a sh!tload of B1 and B2 bombers just sitting around doing nothing. I think maybe a good three or four months of strikes targeted indiscriminately at villages and mosques should do the trick. The Taliban strategy relies completely on a perceived American squeamishness at civilian casualties. I say give them a real indication that their theory is wrong. THEN we can withdraw our troops with the promise that we'll come back and do it again if we are fvcked with. Assured and swift retribution. They understand THAT even in the backwoods fvckoff mudhut sh!tholes of Helmand and Waziristan.

Let the UN pass resolutions against the US and then let them enforce them.

BY THE WAY.... innocent civilians get killed in wars, HD. That's how it works.

[native]

......Scheurer agrees that we should go in there with a massive display of real force, and then get the fvck out. I am completely on board with that. In fact, I don't think it is too late to do so now. We have a surge of troops over there and a sh!tload of B1 and B2 bombers just sitting around doing nothing. I think maybe a good three or four months of strikes targeted indiscriminately at villages and mosques should do the trick. The Taliban strategy relies completely on a perceived American squeamishness at civilian casualties. I say give them a real indication that their theory is wrong. THEN we can withdraw our troops with the promise that we'll come back and do it again if we are fvcked with. Assured and swift retribution. They understand THAT even in the backwoods fvckoff mudhut sh!tholes of Helmand and Waziristan.

Let the UN pass resolutions against the US and then let them enforce them...

It's what Clinton should have done in Mogadishu before withdrawing there, too. But it ain't gonna happen on Obummer's watch. Out politician in Chief demands an "exit strategy," not a victory of any sort.

[houndawg]

As things stand, yes, they are. Should they be? Does it have to be this way? Fvckno!

Maybe what you see as lack of stomach in Americans is actually lack of stomach for killing innocent civilians.

Because that is who will be getting killed by the bushel while the wealthiest American families continue to do business with the likes of the bin Ladens and the House of Saud. It is the same old story of propping up any brutally oppressive dictator who says he isn't a communist and training his secret police in how to torture civilians. And then we scratch our heads and wonder why them ragheads don't believe us when we tell them how .our system is the answer to their problems

Our system ISN'T the answer to their problems. That is the point, which you missed in spectacular fashion.

I don't give a sh!t what kind of government Afghanistan practices. I don't care if they are Muslim or Hindu, or if they practice bestiality or ancestor worship. None of those things affect Americans or America. The only thing people understand... the only REAL motivation to restrain yourself from hurting other people is the ASSURED knowledge that if you attack this tribe or that tribe is that they will come back and murder your A$$ to the very last woman and child. The upside of that is that they will also know that you you leave them the fvck alone, they will do the same to you.

I guess I am just not as elevated as you are... as enlightened... but then there were lots of enlightened people killed on 9-11 and their world views did not get them fvck all. They still had to jump out of the top of those buildings while their skin crisped off.

Too many Americans get pissed and full of national self-loathing over why we were attacked on 9-11. I say the reasons we got attacked are insignificant as long as we mark a clear deterrent to a repeat performance. We have the capability to orphan every child and widow every wife over there. We should demonstrate it a little more forcefully and THEN we'll see how much the 'radical' Muslims are bent on seeing Allah.

Scheurer agrees that we should go in there with a massive display of real force, and then get the fvck out. I am completely on board with that. In fact, I don't think it is too late to do so now. We have a surge of troops over there and a sh!tload of B1 and B2 bombers just sitting around doing nothing. I think maybe a good three or four months of strikes targeted indiscriminately at villages and mosques should do the trick. The Taliban strategy relies completely on a perceived American squeamishness at civilian casualties. I say give them a real indication that their theory is wrong. THEN we can withdraw our troops with the promise that we'll come back and do it again if we are fvcked with. Assured and swift retribution. They understand THAT even in the backwoods fvckoff mudhut sh!tholes of Helmand and Waziristan.

Let the UN pass resolutions against the US and then let them enforce them.

BY THE WAY.... innocent civilians get killed in wars, HD. That's how it works.

Yeah, you're such a hard-headed realist and the rest of us are so backward and insular. Go patronize your fist.

There's just one tiny little problem with your scorched earth, bomb-them-into-the-stone-age policy: it doesn't work. The Soviets tried it for ten years; didn't work. Littered the country with mines that looked like kids toys and blew limbs off of hundreds, thousands, of kids; didn't work. Burned the crops in the field: didn't work. They had plenty of your so-called "stomach" for killing and terrorizing civilians, and they left Afghanistan with their tails tucked.

We were busy slaughtering civilians wholesale in Iraq with "surgical" strikes when we should have been killing bin Laden at Tora Bora. You want to send in the B2s? Send them to Saudi Arabia. I'd be for that, but I suspect that the government and those whom they serve don't have the "stomach" to cross the House of Saud.