Today on Blogcritics
Home » Terrorists Bomb London – RETALIATE!

Terrorists Bomb London – RETALIATE!

Do I hear gloating? Sad to say, but yes, I’m pretty sure that’s what I hear. The wild, wild Left is full-swing into their “I told you so agenda” before the bodies are even cold. Those Islamic terrorists are canny – hit the weak links with bloodshed and the terror will spread like a virus to the smaller nations. They already succeeded in Spain, with very little effort. They must have imagined that the Lefties in England would start running at full tilt away from the war in Iraq. They weren’t wrong.

Demands for Britain’s withdrawal from the “immoral” war in Iraq are mounting (here, and here), and fear is spreading among the Coalition allies.

In Britain, George Galloway surrenders and urges others to do likewise:

We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically, Londoners have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such warnings.

The Socialist Worker Party, never one to miss an opportunity to promote their agenda:

London is a centre of peace, the most multiracial city in Europe and a global centre of opposition to the war and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. A majority of those killed and wounded will have opposed the war in Iraq; some will have joined the huge marches for peace.

The British government cannot avoid its responsibility for these terrible attacks, which are a consequence of its support for war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The best way to ensure that there are no more such terrible attacks is for British troops to be withdrawn from there immediately.

You can read the drivel in its entirety here, but don’t bother trying to find any mention of big, bad terrorists. There is no such thing, apparently – it’s all us. And you certainly won’t see one single word about finding and punishing those responsible. Not one…single…word.

In Canada, next on the list of “Crusader countries”, the National Democratic Party (read: Socialist) leader Jack Layton, is worried:

I join with Prime Minister Blair, Prime Minister Martin and the other G-8 leaders in strongly condemning these acts of terrorism. We will not allow it to undermine Canadian society, our institutions or our beliefs in democracy, human rights, tolerance, and equality. Indeed, we must go forward today with greater determination to build a world that embraces these ideals.

As evidence of that resolve, I urge the leaders gathered in Gleneagles to press on with their stated agenda to address global climate change and to meeting our commitments to fight global poverty.

Once more, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.”

To that thundering denouncement, Angry GWN points out: “Too bad he didn’t mention hunting down and killing terrorists wherever they are hiding as part of the “resolve”. Nope, a bunch of bureaucrat-enviromentalists burbling on about the ozone layer is what is going to show these terrorists we mean business. Oh, and more subsidized housing.”

Wow – what a terrifying retaliation. This is why the phrase “Royal Canadian Army” is usually followed by a question mark – “the what?”. Hardly intimidating.

Canadian Barry Stagg says:

Proper outrage at these terrorists attacks seems to be one typical reaction. However, an atypical, but still too plentiful, attitude oozes from somewhere, taking the position that unctuous neutrality towards these demonic nihilists is the only progressive position to take.

George Bush is right on terrorism. The liberal cultural apologists of the Noam Chomsky school of hyper-civility are wrong and plainly are victims of their own close-eyed introspection.

Malcolm Muggeridge said that the defining inanity of Western liberals was that they perpetually took the position that our enemies are always right and we are always wrong. In 2001, the same was true and today we can look for more such nonsense.

Sounds like the Canadian Lefties and the American Lefties call each other up to decide what to wear. “I’ll wear my yellow dress, if you wear your suit with the yellow stripe.” The play book of the Left (anyone’ s Left) demands that America is the villian – no exceptions. Yet the contortions of their logic know no bounds when such rhetoric requires that the world just roll over for the terrorists. How they can justify giving the terrorists what they want, is beyond my ability to imagine. Have these people never read a history book in their lives ?! They must not realize that al Qaeda, who perpetrated this attack today – could really care less about the people in Iraq, but care a great deal about exercising the power of fear over Europe. The nominal leader in Europe is Britain. If the terrorists can push them around, the rest of the continent will fold like French couture. Can anyone recall WWII? Anyone?

In light of the act of war that London suffered today – and make no mistake, it IS an Act of War – they will need to keep in mind the hard-won lessons of their own history: appeasement NEVER works.

In 991 in order to fend off the Danes, Aethelred 2, King of England paid them 10,000 pounds (weight) in silver. Three years later they demanded another payment to maintain the peace. This time it was 16,000 pounds of silver. In 1002 they demanded 24,000 pounds of silver. This was equivalent to two years of gross national product. In 1006 the Danes returned and demanded 36,000 pounds of silver. This last payment of danegeld finally convinced King Aethelred to fight back and he built large ships in Sandwich to combat the Viking longboats. However, his ships were defeated. The lesson here is that if you appease, in the end you have to fight anyway. If he had spent the money from the beginning on arms he would have had more money for ships and the Danes would have less money for ships and the outcome might have been very different.

In 1938 the English proved they learned nothing from the consequences of appeasing the Danes. Conservative Prime Minister Chamberlain of England gave Czechoslovakia an ultimatum. Either they turn over the Sudetenland to the Germans or England would not come to their aid against a German invasion. This was a violation of the alliance England had made with Czechoslovakia. The Czechs gave up the valuable defenses of the Sudetenland to Hitler. Chamberlain came back to England calling his accomplishments “Peace in our Time”.

The peaceniks rejoiced. The following is a paragraph from an editorial written at the time:

Be glad in your hearts. Give thanks to your God. People of Britain, your children are safe. Your husbands and your sons will not march to war. Peace is a victory for all mankind. And now let us go back to our own affairs. We have had enough of those menaces, conjured up from the Continent to confuse us.

Shortly afterwards Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia which succumbed quickly. Not long after, Germany attacked Britain and bombed London. The Germans caused a lot more devastation as a result of the appeasement policies of Neville Chamberlain.

No one ever won a war by running away from, or acquiescing to the enemy – in fact, that’s the big clue that you’ve LOST. War is primal, beastly, and non-negotiable. Priggish statements about the icky violence, and oozing sympathy for the victims gets us nowhere! The only thing these terrorists understand is death and destruction – we won’t win until we deal out more than they. Sorry, yellow-bellied Lefties, that’s the way of war. Ugly and terrible, but the only way. That’s why you need to stand back and let real Churchillian Men and Women take over – leaders with the resolve to do a dirty job and do it well.

I sure hope there’s some Scottish steel in the collective British backbone – they’re gonna need it. Because from here on out, they’re playing with the big boys, and all the Chamberlain-esque emoting in the world won’t help.

I stand by the Londoners in this tragedy, just as they did with us on 9/11. But take it from us, there’s only one thing to do from this point on:


***************************************************
RETALIATE! Swift, hard, and unrelenting! RETALIATE!
***************************************************

We advocate peace through superior firepower at Euphoric Reality.

About HE!D!

  • king kong

    there is no difference between neo – con and neo nazis.

  • mcguirk

    Retaliate against who exactly and how ? The people responsible for this are an underground network not a country. When you say hit them hard do you mean finding the individuals responsible and bringing them to justice legally ? Because it sounds more from your comments like you mean starting a war against someone else ?

  • Eric Olsen

    King Kong – um, neocons and neo-Nazis would be about EXACT opposites

    very find roundup HE!D!, thanks and welcome! I’m not sure who to retaliate against at this point, though.

  • Dr. Tristan, M.D.

    BUT~~~

    to this instant–there is not a single shred of PROOF that any particular group or individuals committed this last bombing in London……..

    Most people commenting are ASSUMING that this was done by Muslim Extremists…

    ANYBODY can make a post to a website and “claim responsibility” for ANY ACTION—-that is FAR from PROOF that they did the action…….

    For all anyone KNOWS—the IRA or any of a thousand other groups could have done the London Bombing~~~

    OR —for that matter—for all we know it could have been the Parisians upset that London won the site for the 2012 Olympics over Paris~~~!!!!!!

    It’s soooo easy to jump on the popular bandwagon and ASSUME that whoever we don’t “like” at the time DID THIS~~~~ but that is not PROOF at all.

    It’s much easier to just act like a parrot and echo what you have heard —
    than to think and analyze for yourself based upon facts and evidence.

  • SFC Ski

    Realistically, it would take a lot of solid police and intelligence work within England to find out who was behind this and deal with them appropriately.

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    correction:
    i only wear red dresses, bein’ a commie & all.

  • Ed

    There is a huge difference between an intelligent, hard response to an incident compared to childish outbursts and misguided anger directed at innocent parties that just perpetuates the problems.

    By all means punish those responsible, but make sure that you are targeting the responsible parties, not some other poor innocent people because they follow a particular religion, or because they look different.

    Thoughtless rants like these are of no help whatsoever.

  • Dawn

    Sure lefties are squawking about it being the U.S.’s fault, and of course Canadians are wimpy liberals willing to take it on the chin.

    It’s easy to be relaxed and have a laissez-faire attitude when you bask in the shadow of the U.S. under its vast and sweeping protection, but the small island of Great Britain knows all too well the cost of war and the price of being re-active as opposed to pro-active.

    I truly feel (and have said this before) that while Iraq may not be seen as a pleasant undertaking and currently is perceived as a mistake, it is overall going to be in the best interest of the world as far as the long-term war on terrorism goes. We will need an Arab-Muslim nation as an ally to defeat the ideology of islamic fundamentalism – if we do it right, Afganistan, and of course, Iraq could be those allies.

    We waited too long to come to GB’s aid during WWII and look at the costs. I think the U.S. has a moral obligation to fight this battle on many fronts and we are deeply in debt to GB’s allegiance and their willingness to be
    warriors and targets in the long struggle of that will most certainly result in more bloodshed. They are sharing the world’s burden with us, their grown-up distant child.

    Rest assured, there will be additional terrorist strikes in the U.S. and abroad – and make no doubt that whether we were to back down or forge ahead in our task of defeating terrorism, terrorists will still seek to destroy our way of life.

    I for one, would rather die fighting, than die wimpering in the dark like a coward.

    We have much to be grateful to Britain for, they have set a fine example of courage in the face of tyranny – and I am not talking about yesterday’s tragic events.

    Let us not be distracted by those who fear further terror because of our confronting these savages head on – all epic struggles have naysayers and detractors. No battle of good and evil was ever won through inaction and diplomacy.

    The devil cannot be reasoned with OR trusted, he can only be fought and hopefully vanquished.

  • Shark

    “RETALIATE!”

    What good, meaningless, macho advice!

    Call us when you figure out who, where, and how.

    Otherwise, your blowhard screed is just an empty gesture — aimed, I might add, only at your fellow Americans who happen to be to the ‘left’ of yer deaf-dumb-and-blind John Wayne kinda ass.

    PS: Here’s an “I told you so”:

    Invading Iraq didn’t do doodley-squat to combat/control Islamic terrorists; as a matter of fact, it had the opposite effect.

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    Sounds to me like the Right are the ones who are gloating…

    Some of them seem to believe that this latest attack means America can stop that analyzing what our policies are doing and just go back to following our “war time president”.

    This ain’t a junior high playground.

    The war on Iraq is a whole
    different issue than the war on terrorism. The idea that pulling out of Iraq will encourage terrorists is complete crap.

    Let’s look back on another great theory that said America just HAD to continue an unpopular war. It was called, “The Domino Theory”. Conservatives loved this, we could NOT leave Viet Nam because it would encourage communist rebels and all the other countries in asia would ineveitably become communist countries.

    Good Macho theory, eh? No retreat, no surrender, eh? Manly stuff.

    But the reality? We left Viet Nam and almost all of the other countries in Asia are NOT communists.

    If you don’t remember the war justifications of the past, you are doomed to follow other faulty logic in the future.

  • Nancy

    Latest theory: Karl Rove did it. He’s keeping his hand in for 2008.

  • Shark

    BTP: “…Sounds to me like the Right are the ones who are gloating…”

    What’s ironic is that a lot of the latest BC “entries” on the London bombings take it as an opportunity to bash the dreaded “leftists” and “liberals”.

    – Which tells you who these dicks thing the enemy really is.

  • Dawn

    Vietnam, while on the surface may seem like a good analogy to Iraq, but if one were to look deeper at the underlying reasons for each, you would see two completely different wars.

    It’s certainly true that we were not under direct attack from Iraq before we went in, but this was hardly some sleepy, backwards nation adopting a government style we didn’t like.

    Iraq is in the center of a part of the world that is notoriously resigned to converting by force and terror their way of life at all costs, they also had a leader known for invading other countries and stealing their valuable resources, who just so happened to hate the U.S. and at various points had access to and used banned weapons against allies of the U.S. AND its own people.

    Few would disagree that Vietnam was a costly and bloody war that we gained almost zero for – but Iraq and Vietnam are not one in the same and the excuses for going to war in Iraq may have been dubious in the beginning, I do believe that the intention was the correct one.

  • Eric Olsen

    I don’t have the sense that ANYONE is gloating other than the terrorists, and they shouldn’t be because I think the result of this will be exactly the opposite of what they sought

  • http://nomilk.blogspot.com no milk

    Ok, I’m not sure who you mean that we should retaliate against. Are you saying that these terrorists are from Iraq? If so, shouldn’t our current war there have prevented this London bombing including that of Madrid? I thought we were winning the War on Terror?

    Is there a specific plan that you have in mind to retaliate or do you mean just continue on with the war in Iraq? Is there another country you want to start a war against? Please be specific.

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    exactly the opposite of what they sought

    Yes. If the terrorists (hereinafter referred to as “they” or “them”) were hoping for a Spain-type reaction, they miscalculated entirely. Exactly as they micalculated the U.S. response to 9/11′s attack.

    And the fact that these creeps hide in the shadows and wear mufti instead of uniforms is precisely why we need to pursue all terrorists, their organizations, and the states that support them as if they are a single enemy.

    They are.

    And we are at war with them, not hiding in our houses waiting for “the police” to find and “charge” them with a crime.

  • td

    You know why Canadians hate american conservatives. Because you’re ungrateful morons.

    We didn’t go into Iraq because we didn’t believe it was the best way to fight terrorism and because most of our troops were already in action. Where were they? They took over command in afganistan so that American troops could be moved to Iraq.

    SIDE NOTE: And while i’m at it, you can take you’re ‘protection’ shit and stuff it. I can’t stand american’s who come off like Canada would be invaded immediately if we were not their neighbours. How many times has Australia been invaded in the past 50 years? Anyways, maybe you should check how many succesful campaigns America has fought without our help before commending on our military ability.

    Back to Iraq….Guess what. We were right. Iraq hasn’t decreased terrorist activity one bit, in fact it has been used as one giant promotional tool/training ground for Al Queda recuits that are mostly comming from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Iran and Palestine.

    Stop equating being anti-Iraq with anti-war on terrorism. Do you really think that every person who disagree’s with Bush’s plan is willing to allow radical islamic fundamentalism to continue festering in the middle east?

    I don’t like it any more than you do. But terrorism will continue to exist until the rich Middle Eastern countries live under democracies for several generations. And this will not happen while America is dependant on them for Oil, because so long as this is the case you have nothing to pressure them to change with.

    If their are entire countries acting as bases like Afganistan then sure, hit them. But until you spend the kind of money you spent on the Iraq implementing an alternative energy source to replace oil the middle east will continue to say that they condem these type of acts, but do nothing to stop the radical mosques that pump out extremists, and nothing to stop the flow of funding from Oil into the hands of terrorist groups.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Some are getting Spain confused again. The winner, Zapatero, had already said he would pull the forces out before the train bombing . And he won.

    Facts are all that we have. Portraying allies – France in World War II and Spain in 2004 – as weak cowards is not a classy way to go. It seems portraying the enemy as barbaric cowards would make much more sense.

    >>Iraq is in the center of a part of the world that is notoriously resigned to converting by force and terror their way of life at all costs,

    I think it’s fair to say they learned a lot of this from colonial powers. However, that doesn’t mean “they” shouldn’t have the power and the will to stop themselves and look for much better solutions.

  • Dawn

    I whole-heartedly agree with you td about the oil issue, we need to find alternate energy sources so that we don’t have to pander to those who harbor and support terrorists, unfortunately that takes time to wean us off of that particular fossil fuel.

    As for your assertions about Canada NOT enjoying U.S. protection, to that I say respectfully, “bullshit”.

    Most of the western world enjoys the freedom from defense spending and being a target of attack because of the protection the U.S. and GB offer – like it or not, that’s the facts.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>A majority of those killed and wounded will have opposed the war in Iraq; some will have joined the huge marches for peace.<<

    Wow, what a completely unsupportable generalization. The SWP has no idea how those people would have come down on the Iraq issue. Typical self-serving socialist spin.

    I bet English public opinion is much more likely to swing pro-war as a result of this rather than anti-war. English culture – and even all those immigrants have signed on for the culture – is characterized by not liking to get pushed around.

    Dave

  • Melissa

    Once more ,’terrorist attacks’ come at such a convenient time for war obsessed governments.Once more they can say ‘see I told you do’ This is probably another inside job by the government , for the government and against the people. When are citizens going to wake up and see who the real terrorists are?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Melissa – try selling crazy somewhere else.

    Dave

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Melissa: …probably another inside job by the government

    Yes, terrorist attacks are so convenient for all, and such a boost to the economy and the sitting government. [/sarcasm]

    Citizens who are already awake are perfectly aware of who the “real” terrorists are, lady – we might not have their names and addresses yet, but “by their actions you will know them.”

    Go ahead, offer your opinion personally, face-to-face, to Londoners who are dealing with those “convenient” attacks. (I recommend you duck…)

  • td

    Yes, well….I guess someone has to hold the nukes.

    Anyways, the basic problem I have with the Iraq plan as it relates to terrorism is that there is no realistic end game. This notion that Iraq is going to be a democratic catalyst for the rest of the region is ridiculous. Once the troops pull out Iraq is still going to be a political mess, and even if it does remain democratic, it will be far from able to lead by example in the middle east.

    And as I explained in the previous post, what’s the incentive for others to change? They’re rich, people are satisfied with the lifestyle, so why change.

    The war in Iraq will hopefully be good for Iraq. And getting rid of Saddam does increase stability in the region. However, was spending a few hundred billion on Iraq the most cost efficient way to decrease terrorism? I don’t think it was.

    You say that it’s going to take time to wean the US of Oil. I agree, but it’s also going to take money. And not all of that money needs to be spent on technologies that are not yet available. How many public transit systems could have been built or improved upon with that money. Maybe instead of China buying up American energy resources like Unical, the US could be buying up non-middle eastern foriegn resources. And certainly more money invested into hydrogen technology, tar sands refinment, etc, etc, would not have slowed down the waiting period for alternative energy.

    This is where I have a problem with Bush, because he is not laying out for the average Joe how terrorism is really going to be defeated. (And don’t get me wrong, the Democrats wouldn’t do it either). But the war against terrorism is going to take many decades, it’s going to require significant cultural and political changes across the middle east, and it’s going to piss off a lot of the current states who are currently considered alies….namely Saudi Arabia.

    Which is why I call Iraq a war of conveniance. You can reason that it might effect terrorism. It didn’t piss off many other Middle Eastern states because Saddam was an ass to everyone. Politically it made it look as if the War on Terrorism was been fought with all the guns the US could muster. And most importantly, it was a war that could be fought with negligable sacrifice to the economy and the american people.

    There are more ways to win a war then just blowing up shit. Look at the fall of communism in russia. Having a big army and nukes worked as a deterent to military conflict, but in the end it was capitalism and the power of the western economny that defeated them.

  • Dawn

    Agreed td, but the ideological difference with Russia and the fundamentalist terrorist is that Russians DO love their children, and the terrorist don’t.

    Sometimes you do have to “blow shit up” and I would rather blow their shit up than my own.

  • http://www.geocities.com/RoninWulf Paul Were

    > No one ever won a war by running away from, or acquiescing to
    > the enemy – in fact, that’s the big clue that you’ve LOST.
    > War is primal, beastly, and non-negotiable.

    Has “damn the diplomats, let’s fight!” helped defeat the IRA?

    No – negotiation and peace accords have brought the current respite from violence.

    Has “we do not negotiate, crush the terrorists!” helped safeguard Israel?

    No – violence has only stopped as a result of diplomacy

    Has any terrorist group ever been defeated by military power alone? Or has winning over the hearts and minds of their supporters—cutting the support out from under the terrorist’s cause—been the primary weapon?

    Those who counsel diplomacy aren’t “surrendering” to terrorists or “appeasing” them. We have simply learned from history what the best way to defeat them is. Killing a terrorist does nothing; killing his cause—convincing the men around him that we will do better for them than the terrorists will—is what defeats terrorism, and the sooner we do that, the fewer innocent people die.

    And all the morons who accuse anyone talking about diplomacy of “appeasement” are forestalling that day, prolonging terrorism and needlessly endangering their countrymen. Think on that next time you go to complain about “those damn liberals”—we want to destroy terrorism as quickly as possible – whether or not that involves killing terrorists is irrelevant. The faster we destroy terrorism, the better; if diplomacy gets us that, so be it.

  • Steve

    god mate, i could tell u were one of these annoying over-patriotic americans straight away by that bloody attitude of yours. Let’s get one thing straight, although the bombings in London have shocked us, in the UK we aren’t afraid of terrorism like it’s suggested in our media, really we were expecting something to happen to us sooner or later. pretty much everyone was convinced after 9/11 that we were next on the list, but in comparision & heinsight (i mean don’t get me wrong it’s horrific what’s happened and we’re moved by it; ppl are still trapped down there in the tubes and everything…) we did get off pretty lightly compared to the numbers that were killed and injured in Madrid and New York. So we’re not gonna panic and drop everything and go out ‘a’ huntin for terrorists, ‘cos lets face it Afghanistan and Iraq were a fucking shambles, and we don’t exactly have a new scent on the newest Al’Qa’ida HQ, do we?

    Retaliate. yes that’s a great idea. I don’t suppose you’ve ever heard of Ghandi, have you? first off i agree with what people have been saying, retaliate against who exactly? Bin Laden was allowed escape from Afghanistan when we had the chance to take him out as you say “Swift, hard, and unrelenting! RETALIATE!” do you see how childish that sounds?

    And the er

    “Priggish statements about the icky violence, and oozing sympathy for the victims gets us nowhere”

    Nowhere? the whole idea of terrorism is in the name: to terrorize. just as our goon Blair obviously stated. the point i feel needs to be expressed here is that we don’t feel a certain bloodlust like you do. I can understand why, but really we don’t have that. It’s not because we had lesser casualties and fatalities, it appears less serious an incident compared to previous terror attacks across the world. Thing is they could have hit us a much more harder and effectively, I would have expected way more of those blasts than there were; if it was truly an all out attack on London and the UK. I don’t know if this makes sense but it sort of put us on guard because I think a lot of people expected more to happen, this didn’t seem big enough for these famed terror attacks on superpower countries. And it’s so unlikely that anything more will happen in London now, the security there is just overwhelming, there’s proper intense police security everywhere in London at the moment and it’s not gonna die away for a while. I’d love our government to find the ones responsible for this and lock them up for life, but what ur suggesting sounds ridiculous:

    “The lesson here is that if you appease, in the end you have to fight anyway. ”

    Appeasing? were not trying appease anyone, we’re saying no matter what your little terrorist stunt your not going to alter us. And if you mean about appeasing the nation and allaying our fears, well, stoicism is a central part of British culture my friend, we aren’t gonna just crush into panic and fear over something like this and declare all out war like yourself. And even then there is no army about to go out and “RETALIATE” against. I don’t even see the point of all this fervour to go to war since it’s always lose/lose situation. Look how many people have died in the previous 2 wars, can you say they were satisfactory retaliations? Certainly hasn’t seemed to cure your bloodlust. Retaliate just sounds like the wrong word completely. Revenge isn’t the idea here at all, it should be to bring those coward terrorist sons-of-bitches to justice and maintain our way of life from fanatics who are much more likely to retaliate and declare war.

    No one’s gonna pussy-foot around if we can do something, we have one of the best militaries in the world, that’s partly why in the UK we definatly feel secure. But just stirring up anger and war-chants like this isn’t going to help anyone at all.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “there is no difference between neo – con and neo nazis.”

    Oh, yeah. No difference at all. What a brilliant statement…

    GEE-ZUZ…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “The idea that pulling out of Iraq will encourage terrorists is complete crap.”

    Riiight. Because leaving Iraq to the terrorists will discourage them…how?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Portraying allies – France in World War II and Spain in 2004 – as weak cowards is not a classy way to go.”

    France was no ally of the US in WWII. Go re-read your history…

    And the Spanish electorate DID react in a cowardly way to the terrorism in Madrid. They elected a SOCIALIST who hates the US and who wanted to suspend actions against terrorists in Iraq.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Most of the western world enjoys the freedom from defense spending and being a target of attack because of the protection the U.S. and GB offer – like it or not, that’s the facts.”

    NATO nations are obligated, by treaty, to spend a certain amount of GDP on defense. Canada doesn’t do this, yet we allow them to remain members of NATO.

    They are free-riding loafers. They would rather spend their tax dollars on the social services of illegal immigrants from Pakistan than defend their own country or live up to their own military obligations.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Once more ,’terrorist attacks’ come at such a convenient time for war obsessed governments.Once more they can say ‘see I told you do’ This is probably another inside job by the government , for the government and against the people. When are citizens going to wake up and see who the real terrorists are?”

    You’re clearly crackers…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Those who counsel diplomacy aren’t “surrendering” to terrorists or “appeasing” them. We have simply learned from history what the best way to defeat them is. Killing a terrorist does nothing; killing his cause—convincing the men around him that we will do better for them than the terrorists will—is what defeats terrorism, and the sooner we do that, the fewer innocent people die.”

    Exactly. And we are slowly killing the terrorist cause by bringing democracy and freedom to the Muslim world, via Iraq and Afghanistan…

  • Jen

    that’s all you can say is “retaliate”? No shit sherlock! But, we should have been fighting AlQueada the whole time since 9/11 and we haven’t. We let Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora and have wasted billions in Iraq that could have been spent hunting down the actual terrorists and fortifying infrastructures from terrorist attacks. But, nope you didn’t want to hear that. You insisted we’d all be safer with Saddam gone. All we heard for two years was Saddam, Saddam, Saddam. Well he’s gone, AQ runs free and we’re no safer.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Rj. Please stop the one thought per comment garbage. Take a breath and write it all at once, with nice little separators. Most everyone else seems to manage nicely.

    Thank you.

  • http://www.andrewiandodge.com Andrew Ian Dodge

    there is no difference between neo – con and neo nazis.

    Anyone who even writes this absurd statement is beyond help. Can you be any more offensive? A bit of anti-semitism creeping in there too. I mean after all the Neo-Nazis hate Jew,s but many neo-Cons are Jewish. That is just for starters…

  • 1Potato

    Jen says we shoul have focused on hunting Osama more vigorously rather then going after Sadam. But most here say there is no use “hunting” terrorists, it’s macho posturing and that we need diplomacy.

    Which is it?

    BTW, Bush’s policy of taking the war oversees to prevent attacks on our soil certainly seems to be working. Or did they suddenly stop hating us?

    Joe

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    1Potato sez…
    *Bush’s policy of taking the war oversees to prevent attacks on our soil certainly seems to be working.*

    tell that to the dead folks in London

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Rj. Please stop the one thought per comment garbage. Take a breath and write it all at once, with nice little separators. Most everyone else seems to manage nicely.”

    I’ll post a comment directed at a particular portion of a post or at an individual comment. Why muddy it up by posting a single comment in response to numerous other comments?

    And I do not appreciate having my comments (poorly) edited in order to fit your idea of how other people should utilize the comments section.

    Thank you.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    There was no editing. It’s just brainless and you come across as a spiteful moron with a short attention span incapable of prolonged thought. I know you not to be but …

    And coming at it 24 hours later. Man.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Well, I know in one post, I had numerous comments that were then edited to become a single comment, and yet there was still an additional, superfluous and redundant comment from me left on the thread.

    This would not be an issue if the comments were not edited in such a manner.

  • Yeniceri Agasi

    ATATURK’S ADDRESS TO THE TURKISH YOUTH

    You, the Turkish youth! Your primary duty is to forever protect and defend the Turkish independence and Turkish Republic. This is the mainstay of your existence and of your future. This foundation is your most precious treasure in the future, as well, there will be malevolents, within and abroad, who will seek to deny your birthright. If one day you are compelled to defend your independence and the republic, you shall not reflect on the conditions and possibilities of the situation in which you find yourself, in order to accomplish your mission. These conditions and possibilities may appear unfavorable. The adversaries who scheme against your independence and your Republic may be the representatives of a victory without precedent in the world. By force or by ruse, all citadels and all arsenals of our dear fatherland may have been taken; all of its armies may have been dispersed and all corners of the country may have been physically occupied. More distressing and more grievous than all these, those who hold and exercise the power within the country may have fallen into gross error, blunder, and even treason. These holders of power may have even united their personal interests with political ambitions of the invaders. The nation itself may have fallen into privation, and may have become exhausted and desolate.
    You, the future sons and daughters of Turkey! Even under such circumstances and conditions, your duty is to redeem Turkish independence and the Republic! The strength you shall need exists in the noble blood flowing through your veins.

    Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

    Ankara, 20th of October 1927

  • Jessie

    Retalitating will only encourage al quida to strike again. We need to take out the people in charge to stop the attacks