President Obama made a good deal

For roughly 200 years our philosophy in the U.S. has been to prevent any "invasion" of our "homeland" by taking the fight to the "enemy's" soil. An anemic, downsized military cannot do that effectively, and #2 "we" have to neutralize any "threat" on their soil to avoid domestic damage.

Pearl Harbor and the attempt and then success in downing the WTC towers demonstrated that a foreign country and terrorists can strike a devastating blow to this country if we are not continuously diligent, and are unable or unwilling to project intelligence and military power to prevent such events.

The "ripple effect" of 911 has impacted this country immensely both psychologically, culturally, physically, and fiscally. Since the beginning of the ballistic, intercontinental missile technology married to a nuclear warhead Houston and San Antonio, Texas, have been "ground zero" ..... an "invading" army is useless under that scenario, and unnecessary. It seems appropriate to stop the production of weapon systems that can destroy parts of this country for 1,000's of years and effectively cause irreparable economic, physical, and personal damage for longer than this country has been in existence.

Here who is currently "in charge" with your future and personal safety:

9/11/2001 CNN

KING: Senator Kerry did your -- did your committee on international operations and terrorism ever actually fear something like this?

SEN. JOHN KERRY (R), MASSACHUSETTS: Absolutely. Absolutely.

We have always known this could happen. We've warned about it. We've talked about it. I regret to say, as -- I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year. I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it, but not really doing hard work of responding. Originally Posted by LexusLover

So an inside job (Pearl Harbor) and another inside job, prove that we are vulnerable? Yeah, to our own government.

Were you drafted? yes or no. Originally Posted by LexusLover

i am certainly not saying that I was drafted but even if I were, is that a bad thing? There were thousands upon thousands of brave American soldiers who were drafted between the early 40's and the mid 70's.

Most of them served their time and moved on to other things. Whether they were drafted or joined mattered at the time but is of little consequence today. Either way, they should be commended for having served their country. End of sentence!

Take comfort in knowing, I served my country and (honorably) moved on to other things. At this stage of my life, it doesn't matter whether I was drafted or joined. I proudly served my country and nothing else matters! If that's a problem for you and/or others who did not serve, than so be it!

How about you? Did you serve in something other than the Cub or Boy Scouts? You have yet to answer that question.

As for what got us on to this subject. I merely responded to your bloviations about "peace-niks." Quite frankly, I thought it was comical, considering that it came from someone who speaks loudly but carry's a itty, bitty, tiny stick.

Carry on, Private Tiny!

For roughly 200 years our philosophy in the U.S. has been to prevent any "invasion" of our "homeland" by taking the fight to the "enemy's" soil. An anemic, downsized military cannot do that effectively, and #2 "we" have to neutralize any "threat" on their soil to avoid domestic damage.

Pearl Harbor and the attempt and then success in downing the WTC towers demonstrated that a foreign country and terrorists can strike a devastating blow to this country if we are not continuously diligent, and are unable or unwilling to project intelligence and military power to prevent such events.

The "ripple effect" of 911 has impacted this country immensely both psychologically, culturally, physically, and fiscally. Since the beginning of the ballistic, intercontinental missile technology married to a nuclear warhead Houston and San Antonio, Texas, have been "ground zero" ..... an "invading" army is useless under that scenario, and unnecessary. It seems appropriate to stop the production of weapon systems that can destroy parts of this country for 1,000's of years and effectively cause irreparable economic, physical, and personal damage for longer than this country has been in existence.

Here who is currently "in charge" with your future and personal safety:

9/11/2001 CNN

KING: Senator Kerry did your -- did your committee on international operations and terrorism ever actually fear something like this?

SEN. JOHN KERRY (R), MASSACHUSETTS: Absolutely. Absolutely.

We have always known this could happen. We've warned about it. We've talked about it. I regret to say, as -- I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year. I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it, but not really doing hard work of responding. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I respectively disagree- I am not sure if you are trying to say reducing our military will make us weaker- but in the world will live in today- it doesn't matter how large of a military you have it all depends on your technology. Israel- is a prime example- overall it's military is smaller than most other middle eastern, but far more advanced technology wise than any other country in the middle east. In factI believe it was in the mid 90's 6 Isreali F-15 jets took out like 30 Syrian fighters using Mig 20's- although they were outmanned the Isreali's had the superior aircraft and the results proved it- even during the U.S- Iraqi invasion - the Iraqi air force didn't fly one plane - the reason was because the U.S air offense/defense was light years more advance than anything the Iraqis could counter- the Iraqis knew it would be futile to use their air force when every plane that took to the air would have been shot down by the U.S.

So an inside job (Pearl Harbor) and another inside job, prove that we are vulnerable? Yeah, to our own government. Originally Posted by WombRaider

The only thing more shallow than your expressed knowledge of history is your gene pool, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Cite reputable sources that support your nonsensical statement, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

The only thing more shallow than your expressed knowledge of history is your gene pool, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Cite reputable sources that support your nonsensical statement, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So we agree that Pearl Harbor was an inside job.

So we agree that Pearl Harbor was an inside job. Originally Posted by WombRaider

For a writer, you sure are slow on the uptake, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Where are your citations for reputable -- non-refuted -- sources to support your asinine claim that Pearl Harbor and 9-11 were "inside jobs", you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas?

For a writer, you sure are slow on the uptake, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Where are your citations for reputable -- non-refuted -- sources to support your asinine claim that Pearl Harbor and 9-11 were "inside jobs", you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas?
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I'm not a writer, firstly. I'm a salesman.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...se-attack.html

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p119_Stolley.html

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...hawaii-attack-

I'm not a writer, firstly. I'm a salesman.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...se-attack.html

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p119_Stolley.html

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...hawaii-attack- Originally Posted by WombRaider

Every one of those articles assert that it was the Japanese who planned and executed the attack against Pearl Harbor, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. And everyone here knows who and what you are, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

So an inside job (Pearl Harbor) and another inside job, prove that we are vulnerable? Yeah, to our own government. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Undercunt (aka Wombhater aka Freelance Faggot from Arkansas "FFA") exposes his own self-contradicting LIBTARD STUPIDITY!

Every one of those articles assert that it was the Japanese who planned and executed the attack against Pearl Harbor, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Hahaha... the Freelance Faggot from Arkansas (FFA) offers up links that refute his own ridiculous assertions. Because he never reads our links, he stupidly assumes we won't read his... His conspiracy-riddled mind eagerly leaps from “missed signals” to “inside job” - even as the author of the book cited in his links directly refudiates him:

Mr Shirley said: "Based on all my research, I believe that neither Roosevelt nor anybody in his government, the Navy or the War Department knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbour. There was no conspiracy."

So an inside job (Pearl Harbor) and another inside job, prove that we are vulnerable? Yeah, to our own government. Originally Posted by WombRaider

An inside job, huh? You believe that and want to stand by while YOUR GOVERNMENT cuts a deal with the devils that allows them to keep 'the bomb"?

Mr Shirley said: "Based on all my research, I believe that neither Roosevelt nor anybody in his government, the Navy or the War Department knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbour. There was no conspiracy." Originally Posted by lustylad

Years ...... YEARS ... ago I read a thick book full of excerpts from documents and testimony that addressed many, if not all, of the "conspiracy" theories on Pearl Harbor, which included documents from the Japanese side. I guess the basic question is: Would the Japanese "co-conspire" with FDR to piss off the U.S. citizens to mobilize the country into a war with Japan, which was not going to end well for the Japanese?

Additionally, if there were a "conspiracy" on 911 then Clinton would have to have had a role in the "conspiracy," and that could explain why his administration obtained an indictment and warrant for OBL, but did little if anything to pursue him, take him into custody, and prosecute him.... so that OBL could successfully orchestrate the 911 attack to be conducted ONLY after Clinton left office, and if Gore didn't win, so that it would happen on Bush's watch.

Now did Monica (the mistress) know about it or did Hillarious, "the wife"?

Speaking of "inside jobs"!!!

An inside job, huh? You believe that and want to stand by while YOUR GOVERNMENT cuts a deal with the devils that allows them to keep 'the bomb"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

So says the illustrious Private Tiny Idiot!

He talks a big game as long as it is someone else doing the fighting and dying.

You may now "Carry On" Private Tiny.

What 5 wars are you referring to? I am talking about a real war where the enemy has the potential to invade our land. I don't consider the U.S-Iraq war a "war" in the true sense of the word- mainly a one-sided invasion. You and I both know that the chances of an Iraqi soldier landing on our shores or an Iraq air fighter jet or Iraqi Scud missile coming anywhere close to our land was zero. Let me ask you a question dirty dog- in any of those 5wars were you worried about the enemy showing up on American soil. Did you really think you would wake up one day and on the news hear: "the Taliban has just taken over New York City and are in full control of the city... or Iraqi jets just bombed D.C and we believe there are loss of American lives- we advise all Americans in the D.C to stay home and avoid coming out until the Iraqi jets have been shot down or have left the country....

The same goes with the Afghan war and the Kuwait-Iraq conflict none of those countries had the man power, technology or means to invade our country so those are quite different. The last major war between 2 countries were the Iran-Iraq conflict where during various times of the battle each side's troop invaded and held territory of the other country's land. Those scenarios were never possible with the so called 5 wars you have mentioned. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I believe the topic was whether nukes were a deterent. We were in five conflicts (is that better) and our having nukes did not stop the enemy from returning fire and killing our people. Whether you consider Korea or Vietnam a war or any of the other conflicts is immaterial to the statement you made. Korea backed by China did have the means to bring the war to us if they had wanted but that is neither here nor there. The fact is nukes are not a deterrent if the enemy does not believe you will use them. If they were every country would immediately knell down before us rather than fight back. I understand that you have recently converted and I respect your right to do so, but it does not change the reality that some countries are a threat to the world should they have nukes.

http://counterjihadreport.com/2015/0...amic-treaties/

Bostom says all the classical Islamic jurists have accepted Hudaibiya as a binding principle. In fact, in December 2013, Iranian leaders talking about the negotiations with the six world powers were openly referring to Hudaibiyah. “In my book is a very pertinent example: Within three weeks of when the initial announcement was made in December 2013 about the plan to reach an agreement an adviser to former Iranian President Khatami actually invoked the treaty of Hudaibiyah,” he said. “So you can see how it’s used to illustrate exactly this deal.”

Bostom also documents in his book that the U.S. State Department has been aware of the Islamic view of treaties with non-Muslim countries since 1880: “Edward A. Van Dyck, then U.S. Consular Clerk at Cairo, Egypt, prepared a detailed report in August, 1880 on the history of the treaty arrangements (so-called ‘capitulations’) between the Muslim Ottoman Empire, European nations, and the much briefer U.S.-Ottoman experience. Van Dyck’s report – written specifically as a tool for State Department diplomats – opens with an informed, clear, and remarkably concise explanation of jihad and Islamic law.” (“Iran’s Final Solution for Israel,” Page 74) “The Muslim jurists teach that Muslim rulers are never to make a lasting peace with unbelievers but can only make temporary truces, ‘to be broken at the pleasure by the prince and in the interest of the believers,’” Van Dyck wrote in 1880, quoting from the works of Abu al-Hussein el-Quduri of the Hanafite School of doctors, who died in 1037 A.D.

“This is a cardinal principle of Islamic law, not just something from Muhammad’s lore or Muhammad’s past,” Bostom told WND. “This is Islamic law. Muhammad is just cited as the precedent for it, but it’s embedded in their law that you don’t engage in any sort of negotiation or treaty unless you’re in some position of weakness; otherwise, you just keep waging jihad.”

The 1880 State Department document “lays it all out there, all the facts,” Bostom said. “But that was back when we still had knowledgeable people, actually educated people, handling things in our government.”





http://counterjihadreport.com/2015/0...out-terrorism/




.