UK: Soldier Beheaded In 'Islamist Terror Attack' Near Military Barracks

[jbombelli]

Btw, I've never said we shouldn't prevent genocide. I take issue with the notion that our government gives a rats ass about those being murdered by foreign governments. Do you think our government gives a rats ass about you? Do you think they brought you obamacare, the patriot act, NDAA, terrorist watch lists etc because they care about your well being? If not, then why do you trust that same government to act on the interests of foreigners?

Sad thing is that there are many who want our soldiers to be practitioners of genocide.

No. I'm not dumb enough to think our government gives a rat's ass about me, you, or anybody else. Governments by their very nature are incapable of caring. But *I* care, whether you do or not, whether Steve does or not, whether Rambone does or not, whether our government does or not.

And again, I usually try to avoid the conversations on genocide. But here is my feeling on it:

We will never win the war on terror unless we commit genocide. But that's not the same as advocating for genocide - I'm simply acknowledging the reality of this war. Our enemies are currently training their children from birth to hate us and that killing us is both good and right. When these children grow up, our children will be fighting them. And this cycle will go on and on and on. People in the Middle East still talk about the Crusades like they happened yesterday, and in 100 years they'll still be talking about us going to Saudi Arabia like we were there yesterday.

But I don't advocate mass genocide. I'm simply acknowledging the nature of this war, and that we need to understand what we've gotten into here. It's too late to get out of it. We can't go back in time and fix the past. "Minding our own business" won't change anything - it's too late for that.

 

[hornadylnl]

No. I'm not dumb enough to think our government gives a rat's ass about me, you, or anybody else. Governments by their very nature are incapable of caring. But *I* care, whether you do or not, whether Steve does or not, whether Rambone does or not, or anybody else for that matter.

And again, I usually try to avoid the conversations on genocide. And here is my feeling on it:

We will never win the war on terror unless we commit genocide. But that's not the same as advocating for genocide - I'm simply acknowledging the reality of this war. Our enemies are currently training their children from birth to hate us and that killing us is both good and right. When these children grow up, our children will be fighting them. And this cycle will go on and on and on. People in the Middle East still talk about the Crusades like they happened yesterday, and in 100 years they'll still be talking about us going to Saudi Arabia like we were there yesterday.

But I don't advocate mass genocide. I'm simply acknowledging the nature of this war.

And people here talk about the Barbary pirates like it just happened yesterday. Starting to notice a pattern here? Like the Hatfields and McCoys, no one will know 100 years from now who "started" it but they're going to finish it.

Do you take issue with the INGOers who want to commit genocide against Muslims?

 

[jbombelli]

And people here talk about the Barbary pirates like it just happened yesterday. Starting to notice a pattern here? Like the Hatfields and McCoys, no one will know 100 years from now who "started" it but they're going to finish it.

Do you take issue with the INGOers who want to commit genocide against Muslims?

Yeah. I don't believe in committing genocide. Unless of course the vast majority of an entire population that attacked us first is mobilized against us. Sort of like when we dropped the A-Bombs on Japan - their population as a whole was preparing to fight us. But at that point, is it really genocide, or is it just mass casualties of war?

 

[hornadylnl]

Yeah. I don't believe in committing genocide. Unless of course the vast majority of an entire population that attacked us first is mobilized against us. Sort of like when we dropped the A-Bombs on Japan - their population as a whole was preparing to fight us. But at that point, is it really genocide, or is it just mass casualties of war?

Do you call out those posters here who advocate it?

 

[Liberty1911]

And people here talk about the Barbary pirates like it just happened yesterday. Starting to notice a pattern here? Like the Hatfields and McCoys, no one will know 100 years from now who "started" it but they're going to finish it.

People bring up the Barbary pirates in response to inane comments like "Muslims never had a problem with us until we invaded their countries."

Then you get to come in and set up your people-talk-about-the Barbary-pirates-like-it-was-yesterday straw man.

You seem like a smart guy, so it's hard to believe you're really that stupid.

 

[Classic]

....and now a French Soldier attacked.

Another Soldier Attacked: Man Wearing ‘Arab-Style’ Garment Reportedly Stabs French Soldier in Neck | TheBlaze.com

 

[rambone]

First, I didn't mention Syria.

Second, I don't believe we should go to war without declaring it first. You've never seen me post otherwise.

Fair enough.

Third, the arguments Hornady and others are making have nothing to do with money.

Its always about money. This is government we're talking about, not the good Samaritan walking along the street.

They're condemning people for supporting genocide against our enemies

If you think billions of people are your enemy, that's the definition of a holy war. Don't assume everyone in the country has the same enormous list of enemies. Those wishing death of billions of people are fanatics.

while at the same time lending tacit support for it when someone ELSE does it by turning a blind eye and allowing it to happen.

Tacit support? Absolutely not.

Not acting doesn't make you guilty of a crime.

So if you would help that one child, why not another? What makes ONE child your problem, but not another?

Does any logical person try to convince you that every child in distress is your personal problem? That's quite a burden to bear.

I think there are huge logical problems with trying to make individual actions analogous to government actions. An individual can unilaterally act without extorting money from others. An individual can act without consent of anyone else. An individual can act and absorb all the risk on himself, rather than forcing others to take that risk.

I usually avoid the genocide conversations. But seeing people say "ERMAGERD YOU SUPPORT GENOCIDE!" when they themselves lend it tacit approval by turning a blind toward it because they don't like the victims is really starting to get on my nerves.

Don't like the victims? I don't follow.

 

[jbombelli]

Do you call out those posters here who advocate it?

Like I said before. I usually avoid these conversations. They serve no purpose other than allowing everyone involved to take a holier-than-thou attitude toward everybody else who doesn't agree with them.

 

[hornadylnl]

Like I said before. I usually avoid these conversations. They serve no purpose other than allowing everyone involved to take a holier-than-thou attitude toward everybody else who doesn't agree with them.

So you tacitly support their lust for genocide?

 

[jbombelli]

Fair enough.


Its always about money. This is government we're talking about, not the good Samaritan walking along the street.

Not according to them. Their argument is "it's not their problem."

If you think billions of people are your enemy, that's the definition of a holy war. Don't assume everyone in the country has the same enormous list of enemies. Those wishing death of billions of people are fanatics.

We're not fighting a holy war. But don't make the mistake of assuming our enemies AREN'T. THEY most certainly are. And simply by being an American, you're part of that war whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Tacit support? Absolutely not.

Not acting doesn't make you guilty of a crime.

Turning a blind eye to the murder of millions because it's "not your problem" makes you, ultimately, no better than those who commit those crimes because you allow them to do it. By refusing to act in any way, you take on some moral responsibility yourself. Hence my question about the child.

Nearly 25 years ago I got to witness a violent crime. You know what I did? I walked on and did nothing about it. Since that day I have never forgiven myself for saying "it's not my problem - someone else will deal with it."

Does any logical person try to convince you that every child in distress is your personal problem? That's quite a burden to bear.

Therefore NO child in distress is your problem? If that's NOT the case, then how do you determine which ones are and which ones are not your problem?

I think there are huge logical problems with trying to make individual actions analogous to government actions. An individual can unilaterally act without extorting money from others. An individual can act without consent of anyone else. An individual can act and absorb all the risk on himself, rather than forcing others to take that risk.

An individual acting by himself can't accomplish much of anything however. But once a bunch of individuals band together and vote and use our tax dollars, we can accomplish a lot more. Some of us will try to stop genocide when we can. Granted, our government isn't always the most responsive, but we try.

And just for the record, I tried to enlist when I turned 18. But the Corps declined me for medical reasons - I had asthma when I was a kid and that was all they needed to hear. The Army said no, too. That leaves me with using my vote and my tax dollars.

Don't like the victims? I don't follow.

Someone else said we only care about genocide when we like the victims. By extension, we must logically NOT care about it when we DON'T like the victims.

 

[jbombelli]

So you tacitly support their lust for genocide?

About as much as you personally supported genocide against the Kurds by not wanting to go after the guy you know committed it.

 

[hornadylnl]

About as much as you personally supported genocide against the Kurds.

So you take issue with those of us who you believe don't want our government to end genocide but won't bother yourself to call out those who want to turn 1 billion + people into glass.

 

[hornadylnl]

About as much as you personally supported genocide against the Kurds by not wanting to go after the guy you know committed it.

Ah, you edited while I was quoting. My issue with the Iraq war had nothing to do with us ending genocide against the Kurds because the Iraq war didn't have a damned thing to do with preventing genocide. That genocide took place in the late 80's and we went to Kuwait in the early 90's stopping short of Iraq and left Saddam in power. For over a decade, we kept a score card of Saddam's atrocities and we did nothing. Seems a day late and a dollar short to me.

I wouldn't have an issue with our military preventing genocide. I certainly have an issue with our military committing it.

 

[jbombelli]

So you take issue with those of us who you believe don't want our government to end genocide but won't bother yourself to call out those who want to turn 1 billion + people into glass.

I don't believe they're serious in their Hitlerian rants. I think they're just waving their e-johnsons around to rile up the "INGOterians" as they were called in a prior post. I've seen a whole lot of that, and I don't waste my time with it.

And I usually don't call out those who take YOUR position either.

But assuming they're being truthful, and they really advocate for genocide, at least their position is clear. They don't advocate against it while supporting it by hypocritically looking the other way when it happens.

Ah, you edited while I was quoting. My issue with the Iraq war had nothing to do with us ending genocide against the Kurds because the Iraq war didn't have a damned thing to do with preventing genocide. That genocide took place in the late 80's and we went to Kuwait in the early 90's stopping short of Iraq and left Saddam in power. For over a decade, we kept a score card of Saddam's atrocities and we did nothing. Seems a day late and a dollar short to me.

I wouldn't have an issue with our military preventing genocide. I certainly have an issue with our military committing it.

It looks like we both did that. lol.

As I said, that was the reason *I* am happy we went there and finally got that guy. And believe me, I'm less than satisfied with 99% of what our government does, and how they do it. But I recognize that we can't stop all of them.

And I also don't want to see our military committing genocide.

 

[Liberty1911]

So you take issue with those of us who you believe don't want our government to end genocide but won't bother yourself to call out those who want to turn 1 billion + people into glass.

Yeah, about as much as you bother to get upset about Islamic terrorists killing innocent Americans.

 

[hornadylnl]

I don't believe they're serious in their Hitlerian rants. I think they're just waving their e-johnsons around to rile up the "INGOterians" as they were called in a prior post. I've seen a whole lot of that, and I don't waste my time with it.

And I usually don't call out those who take YOUR position either.

But assuming they're being truthful, and they really advocate for genocide, at least their position is clear. They don't advocate against it while supporting it by hypocritically looking the other way when it happens.

I don't look the other way when it happens and I don't advocate that we don't prevent it. But I don't advocate using it as a phony reason to enter a war either. Our foreign policy doesn't have anything to do with preventing it.

Sure, a lot of the rhetoric espoused here is e-johnson but they're voting for the candidates that they think will bring it. They're all about sending others to do it but aren't so convicted that they're willing to do it themselves.

We often warn posters here about what to say and what not to say because you never know who's watching. You don't think that there are Muslims all over the world reading sites like this and saying "See! They want to kill us all!!!!!" further fueling their hatred?

 

[hornadylnl]

Yeah, about as much as you bother to get upset about Islamic terrorists killing innocent Americans.

And how do you know that I'm not upset? Do I have to one up the rest of the blood lust on an Internet forum to prove my anger?

 

[Liberty1911]

And how do you know that I'm not upset? Do I have to one up the rest of the blood lust on an Internet forum to prove my anger?

Can you point to a single post where you condemn Islamic terrorists?

Or is your internet blood lust reserved for conservative posters?

 

[HeadlessRoland]

So genocide is taking place in Syria and South Africa and we're in Iraq and Afghanistan? Good to know our boys are out there preventing genocide.

Our troops are only marginally better at 'peacekeeping' than the blue helmets. We can win virtually any war in the world with our military (assuming the Commander-in-Chief doesn't deliberately hamstring them). What we've never been great at is winning the peace. WWI: American involvement, attrition, 'success' with Treaty of Versailles, humiliated the Germans in winning without grace. All over Austria and Serbia having a pissing match and some ruthless entanglements. WWII: American direct involvement after pre-emptive Japanese attack due to our financial involvement, attrition, victory on two fronts and two continents, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians and set the stage for later conflicts in Europe and Asia. Korea: indirect then direct American backing of non-Communist faction, attrition, 'victory as armistice,' continued if controlled aggression into the present day.

For all our millions of brave and proud soldiers lost in our wars - for all of the human sacrifice and trillions of dollars of financial cost, we have the same problems that lead to those wars still present half a century later. We are fighting the same wars because to coerce is to fail: persuasion is success. The only way to fight a war justly and without immoral repetition and repeated, cyclical conflict and casualty is to fight a total war, a war in which the enemy may never recover and harbor grudges to build into later aggression as we did in World War I and even in World War II - we had the will to kill hundreds of thousands to pre-emptively prevent mass slaughter in taking the Pacific one island at a time (and to show the Emperor whom he was ******* with), but we still didn't have the fortitude to force complete submission from our enemy with total annihilation. They offered surrender, we accepted, and luckily, it has yet to come back to bite us.

But I do not know that we will be so lucky in future by demonstrating morality or compassion (and thereby weakness) to this new enemy. This new enemy does not appreciate mercy. This enemy longs for death. This enemy is not grateful for compassion, this enemy sees compassion as disloyalty to God and therefore weakness to the extreme. If we are truly to have war, then for the sake of all the progeny to follow us and the rest of mankind, then let this be our final war.

 

[jbombelli]

I don't look the other way when it happens and I don't advocate that we don't prevent it. But I don't advocate using it as a phony reason to enter a war either. Our foreign policy doesn't have anything to do with preventing it.

Sure, a lot of the rhetoric espoused here is e-johnson but they're voting for the candidates that they think will bring it. They're all about sending others to do it but aren't so convicted that they're willing to do it themselves.

We often warn posters here about what to say and what not to say because you never know who's watching. You don't think that there are Muslims all over the world reading sites like this and saying "See! They want to kill us all!!!!!" further fueling their hatred?

I agree that our foreign policy has nothing to do with preventing genocide. But if there's one situation in which we should never just mind our own business, it's that.

The problem with both the Republicans and the Libertarians on this particular issue is simple: The Republicans might bring genocide, but the Republicans would also be the ones to interfere with another country's politics and stop it (sometimes, when it suits them, but at least that's sometimes). The Libertarians won't bring it, but neither will they lift a finger to prevent it.

As far as Muslims from all over the world reading this site and getting riled up by a few INGO posters, that's about as likely as American gun owners perusing all the radical Muslim sites and getting riled up.

As I said before, there's no winning this war. This will go on for many generations to come. Our great grandchildren will be fighting against their great grandchildren.

And how do you know that I'm not upset? Do I have to one up the rest of the blood lust on an Internet forum to prove my anger?

So you tacitly support them? Why don't you call them out?

We can around that circle all month long.