Calls to Destroy Egypt’s Great Pyramids Begin

joe, I did not say anything about 1% of the world supporting terrorism....I was referring to your comment that 99.9% of terrorism is Isamic.

I can now see clearly with what I have been dealing with ....so I will now move onto the provider section of this site, lol

BTW, IFFOFRDB...your avatar is of a KC provider??? Don't know what your connection is with her....but I've party with her a few times. Now there's an interesting subject,lol

Laz...again as others have done....you are confusing a convention war, i.e. WW2, where one nation is at war with another nation.

To acts of terrorism....wonderful point you have made, about the dark side of war. Only it has nothing to do with this discussion Originally Posted by vkmaster

It has everything to do with this discussion. we need to go after terrorists wherever they are. They are in a nation somewhere. If the nation will not take care of them themselves then they should assist us in doing it for them. If they refuse to do either then they are also the enemy and we take them out as well until they surrender. Any ongoing violence by the population is handled harshly. Do that one or two times and other nations will start to reconsider how fond they are of supporting terrorists. One thing we need to stop doing is thinking war can be done cleanly. War is ugly and horrible. Trying to avoid collateral damage is counter productive. Make it clear to the population if they do not want to become collateral damage they need to keep the terrorists as far away as possible.

They also burned down the Library of Alexandria, if I remember right. (I was quite young at the time.) Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Well sort of. In 48 BC Julius Caesar accidentally burned the library down when he set fire to his own ships to frustrate Achillas' attempt to limit his ability to communicate by sea

Good point, Louie. In fact, there were several disasters which happened to the library. From Wikipedia:

Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the partial or complete destruction of the Library of Alexandria: Julius Caesar's fire in the Alexandrian War, in 48 BC; the attack of Aurelian in 270 – 275 AD; the decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in AD 391; and the Muslim conquest in 642 AD or thereafter.

Turns out Pagans, Christians and Muslims took turns trying to rid the world of knowledge. Thanks for the input.

A lot of the thinking here seems to be very 20th century. The days of having a government to declare on may well be gone. We are now in the era of unconventional warfare. The enemy may be a creed, a business, or a terrorist philosophy and not a country. If we get hung up on this we can only lose. More like crime fighting than war fighting. A cop can come under intense fire with his very life at stake. A SWAT team arrives and the suspect(s) drop their guns and raise their hands demanding a lawyer. The cops are required to take them down, read them their rights, treat them with some respect, and get them a lawyer. This is war and not crime fighting. Radical Islam is the enemy have no fear of that. Innocent people die in war but General Sherman (the author of total war) believed that any hardship suffered by the civilians who supported the regime was justified. Any muslim who supports or refuses to oppose radical Islam should expect to suffer the consequences. That is not to say that we target civilians like terrorists do but we should no be deterred due to expected civilian causalities when we strike at legitimate targets.

"Plutarch (AD 46–120) wrote that during his visit to Alexandria in 48 BC Julius Caesar accidentally burned the library down when he set fire to his own ships to frustrate Achillas' attempt to limit his ability to communicate by sea."

Damn Louise, can't you just say something without plagarizing. This is exactly what came out of Wikipedia. Hang your head in shame Louise.

Without a declaration of war, there are no legitimate targets. The President of the United States does not get to unilaterally choose who is our enemy, and who is not. S/he does not get to unilaterally decide who lives, and who dies. S/he ought not be allowed to keep a "kill" list and then direct the murder of people based on suspicion.

Unless we are now a post-constitutional totalitarian regime. Then it's ok.

Dammit, JD! Be respectful! Calling out Louise on a plagiarized post does not contribute to a rational discussion of issues. BL has set a tone of thoughtful discussion, and guys like us ruin it by telling the truth.

It has everything to do with this discussion. we need to go after terrorists wherever they are. They are in a nation somewhere. If the nation will not take care of them themselves then they should assist us in doing it for them. If they refuse to do either then they are also the enemy and we take them out as well until they surrender. Any ongoing violence by the population is handled harshly. Do that one or two times and other nations will start to reconsider how fond they are of supporting terrorists. One thing we need to stop doing is thinking war can be done cleanly. War is ugly and horrible. Trying to avoid collateral damage is counter productive. Make it clear to the population if they do not want to become collateral damage they need to keep the terrorists as far away as possible. Originally Posted by Laz

You're exactly right. The terrorists use our kindness against us. They hide behind women and children because we would rather die ourselves than harm the innocent. As you said, every nation on earth must be held accountable for terrorism that originates in their country.

We need to be as brutal as necessary to defeat an extremely brutal enemy. We should have taken Bin Laden alive, water boarded him for several months, exectued him and fed his body to hogs.

We should have taken Bin Laden alive, water boarded him for several months, exectued him and fed his body to hogs. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Joe the Bloehard seems to be well versed in playing the "Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda" game, as opposed to the sensible path of least resistence!

Apparently the President has enough common sense to rely upon the discretion of the Navy Seals as opposed to the Monday Morning Quarterback advice of Joe the Bloehard.

With that thought in mind, it appears the President chose the following pest (OBL) eradication process. (Despite Joe the Bloehard's later objections):

1) The President was notified of OBL's probable whereabouts
2) The President approved the mission leaving it up to the Navy Seals to either kill or capture OBL, dependent upon the situation at hand! (For the record, OBL was Wanted, Dead or Alive, not Wanted Alive Only)
3) OBL was shot and killed at point blank range
4) The President promptly authorized that OBL be fed to the fishes, later to become whale shit.

Sounds like a sure-fire method of pest eradication to me! Way to go, Mr. President!

Without a declaration of war, there are no legitimate targets. The President of the United States does not get to unilaterally choose who is our enemy, and who is not. S/he does not get to unilaterally decide who lives, and who dies. S/he ought not be allowed to keep a "kill" list and then direct the murder of people based on suspicion.

Unless we are now a post-constitutional totalitarian regime. Then it's ok. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I agree. The premise here is that the terrorists set off a nuke and all out war is declared on them and any nation that harbors and supports them.

You're exactly right. The terrorists use our kindness against us. They hide behind women and children because we would rather die ourselves than harm the innocent. As you said, every nation on earth must be held accountable for terrorism that originates in their country.

We need to be as brutal as necessary to defeat an extremely brutal enemy. We should have taken Bin Laden alive, water boarded him for several months, exectued him and fed his body to hogs. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Can't recall seeing much support for our drone strikes or going into Pakistan after bin Laden from you.
Of course you bitch about him being killed. That's not good enough. Let's bring him to America so we can increase the number of terrorists by a hundred fold. Real smart.

And it's we don't disregard the innocent. We regularly kill some. Because we don't intentionaly go after them, I can accept the number killed.

Of course you bitch about him being killed. That's not good enough. Let's bring him to America so we can increase the number of terrorists by a hundred fold. Real smart. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

No one has ever mistaken Joe the Bloehard's posts as being well thought out! That's what separates Joe from the rest of the Bloehards!

Without a declaration of war, there are no legitimate targets. The President of the United States does not get to unilaterally choose who is our enemy, and who is not. S/he does not get to unilaterally decide who lives, and who dies. S/he ought not be allowed to keep a "kill" list and then direct the murder of people based on suspicion.

Unless we are now a post-constitutional totalitarian regime. Then it's ok. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

General Holder declared your statement invalid last year. Any person the President decides is a terrorist, including American citizens, can be assasinated at his will.

The only real hope to finally end the problem of Islamic terrorism completely, is an Islamic reformation, similar to the Christian reformation. I doubt that any of us will live long enough to see that. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Actually, that WON'T happen.

One of the fundamental tenets of Islam is that the fundamental tenets of Islam are FIXED, forever. "Innovation", trying to change the basic tenets, or even reinterpreting them, is a crime against Allah and Islam.

Islam conquering all, by force of arms if the infidels don't voluntarily convert, is one of the other fundamental tenets of Islam.