News-Record.com

"You destroy a rabid dog,"

If we were actually destroying Al Qaida, we wouldn't be in this little predicament, now would we?

"You destroy a rabid dog."

Or, if you are W, you shoot the mean dog next door instead. That way the rabid dog is still out there infecting other dogs, and now the neighbors hate you, too.

We should know by now that war is not the answer. What is wrong with trying to seek peace? If we are truly a Christian nation, that is what Jesus teaches us. As a bumper sticker says, Who Would Jesus Bomb? I believe that God loves us all equally. The Bible tells us to do all that is possible to live peaceably with all men.

And you want to negotiate with these people. These terrorist do not negotiate. 10-15 years ago, yes they seized buildings, people, airplanes and made demands and in many cases got them, which was a terrible mistake. Here are just a few facts that may show you that these people don't like you, don't want to live with you, and don't care if you offer a hand of peace to them, they will cut it off and your head also.

The jihadi terrorists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam and the sharia. As cited in the London Daily Telegraph,(you really didn't expect to read this in the NY Times or the N&R now did you), their real project is the extension of Islamic territory across the globe and the establishment of a worldwide caliphate founded on sharia. Terrorists openly declare this goal. The Islamists who assassinated Anwar Sadat in 1981 decorated their holding cages with banners proclaiming "The caliphate or death". A biography of Abdullah Azzam, one of the most influential Islamist thinkers of recent times and an influence on Osama bin Laden, declares that his life "revolved around a single goal, namely the establishment of Allah's rule on earth" and restoring the caliphate. Bin Laden spoke of ensuring that "the pious caliphate will start from Afghanistan". His chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, also dreamed of re-establishing the caliphate, for then, he wrote, "history would make a new turn, God willing, in the opposite direction against the empire of the US and the world's Jewish government". Another al-Qa'ida leader, Fazlur Rehman Khalil, publishes a magazine that declares: "Due to the blessings of jihad, America's countdown has begun. It will declare defeat soon", to be followed by the creation of a caliphate. Or, as Mohammed Bouyeri wrote in the note he attached to the corpse of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film-maker he assassinated last November, Islam will be victorious through the blood of martyrs who spread its light in every dark corner of this earth. Interestingly, Bouyeri was frustrated by the mistaken motives attributed to him, insisting at his trial: "I did what I did purely out of my beliefs. I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insulted."

Now negotiate with that ilk and find yourself in a simular situation as Theo van Gogh.
You don't negotiate with these people, for they are like rabid dogs, you destroy them, one at a time, where ever they run, where ever they hide.
Yea and if you happen to shoot the neighbors dog because he looked like a rabid dog, smelled like the rabid dog and foamed at the mouth like a rabid dog, so be it.

AMEN, Mr. P.

Very good post,mrproduce. Thank God democratic shills like Ed Cone are not running the show or we would all be either dead or wearing turbans by now. The gutless left want to extend the hand of peace? These animals would cut it off and throw it at their dying a**. There is one way and one way only to deal with these ragheads,to kill them before they kill us. This is something the left cannot grasp and I'm convinced it is from too much pot smoking in the 60s and 70s.

Who said anything about extending the hand of peace to al-Qaeda, or negotiating with them? Not me, that's for damn sure.

I was all for killing them in Afghanistan, and then I hoped we would pursue them to every corner of the world and finish the job.

Instead, we invaded a country that was hostile to al-Qaeda and turned it into a recruiting camp for them, in the process bogging down our military in a war we show every sign of not being able to finish.

You guys talk awful tough, but are you paying attention to what is actually going on in the world?

Shooting the neighbor's dog is not working out very well, and the rabid dog is infecting others.

I totally support Ed Cone.

MRP's post is also true .. but none of that negates the clear fact that by not rapidly and rabidly going after them immediately after 9-11, we have made the situation much worse. We had world support and carte blanche, and we blew it.

I do find it strange the partisans (and I see none in this thread, thank goodness) that rant about Clinton letting ObL go (and there is at least some debate about that reality) are the same ones that say nothing about our current strategy of ... jeeze ya better tell me 'cause I don't know what it is.

Mr.P
Dont take this question to mean I support negotiating with al-qaida or bin laden, I dont because to me bin laden still hasnt paid for what he did for 911.

But if you were to go back to the 60's or even 70's and ask the Israelis wouldnt it be better to negotiate with Arafat and the PLO I could imagine you would have gotten,for the most part, responses similar to yours and yet see what is happening there now.

I still believe the key to weakening al qaeda is to go after the source of people and make them less of an attraction by giving these people more hope. I am not so sure this means forcing democracy on these countries is the best answer and lets not fool ourselves into believing that a democratic syria or egypt will be USA-loving country.

And for those who argue democratic nations are friends and dont wage war against each other then ask yourself why do we align ourselves with a military dictatorship in Pakistan and India,the worlds biggest democracy aligns itself with china. Is it me or is something wrong with that picture?

For those of you who think we are just fighting a war against terrorist, think again. We are fighting a war of ideology. The Islamic's ,as in my post, will stop at nothing until their goal of world domination is complete. Today in several overseas papers that I read quoted the leader of the JL ( the Islamic group in Indonesia, responsible for the bombing in Bali) has now gone on record as saying that nukes are a very real possibility for use, especially in an attack on the US. His reasoning is that a larger impact must be made on the US to make them give in to the Islamic way of thinking. I do not have the link for the article since it is now the next day and the headlines have changed in most of those papers the article appeared in. If you are interested I do have a copy of the article in my files and will be glad to send it to you direct.
Here are two quotes from the article:

They will constantly be enemies. But they'll lose. I say this not because I am able to predict the future but they will lose and Islam will win. Islam must win and Westerners will be destroyed. If they refuse to be under Islam, it will be chaos. Full stop. If they want to have peace, they have to accept to be governed by Islam."

They have to stop fighting Islam, but that's impossible because it is sunnatullah (destiny, a law of nature), as Allah has said in the Koran," he says

So according to this Islamist, Ed, it wouldn't matter if we were fighting in Afganistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, or where ever or not at all, we are going to still have to fight them and either win or allow them to take over.

I think that makes it a bit clearer what the mission is. Perhaps some of those who wish to appease these folks who are within our government need to read this every morning when they awaken and every nite before they go to sleep. Maybe then they would "get it".

Right. We all agree (except the writer of whatever Brenner was responding to in the original letter) that the Islamist threat is real and must be terminated with extreme prejudice.

The point of my comment, and of the supporting comments, was that invading Iraq did not help in that effort, and may well end up hurting it.

Yes, it's possible that Saddam could have made common cause with his longtime Islamist enemies. But I don't think that our headlong invasion of Iraq, and the occcupation that stretches before us, are working to our benefit.

I think that as Americans we stand on the same side. We want to defend ourselves, and go on the offensive to do so. We may disagree on tactics and strategy. But again, I haven't seen anyone in this thread downplay the reality of bin Laden and Co, so I'm not sure what all this appeasement talk is about.

Mr P
Again I hope you did not read my question to mean I was suggesting we negotiate with al qaida or bin laden.
I would like to raise some points here and some maybe old news for you from me but only to serve as a reminder.

First I see the war on terrorism as being fought on two critical fronts,as many do. To me there are those who have "crossed the line"( for a lack of better words here) which means the only solution for them is their death. They will not be stopped in reaching their goals unless they "are shot like rabid dogs". I dont have a problem with this. And the people you refer to need to be taken extremely serious and when possible taken out as well. So this SHORT TERM war on terrorism is badly needed and should recieve high priority from our government. But these groups in the end can not be destroyed; they have an endless source of people, fighters and believers. Which gets me to my next point.

A sad fact is that terrorism is here to stay. To call this war a success only when we wipe out terrorism is an illusion. I am sure you read or heard that after 911, at the height of the unlimited support many countries were willing to give us, many were still saying that 911 didnt change the world it only brought America into the reality of what the rest of the world has been experiencing for decades. WE are now a target and that wont change. But what we can change is where and how these groups get new people. And this has to be our LONG TERM goal. WE need to change this side of the equation. I see minor steps but nothing to even convice me a little Bush is serious about tackling this problem.

And in my opinion we are putting to much into teh short term at the expence to the long term. And to go off half cocked and hit any country we may think or have on a low level al.qaida connections may make us feel good about the short term but will only proove to a catastrophic for us in the long term because all we are doing is feeding their available sources. Yes go after these people "on the other side"(again lack of better phrase here) but find a way that doesnt hurt the long term goals. Maybe and hopefully in the end leaders as the one you quoted have less listerners and their words have less meaning to the arab population as a whole.

And final point. This is not to say we should not be listening to these people. They should be and should be taken serious as they influence many and lets not forget Hitler and his Mein Kampf. But MrP we can go and find leaders in our country who are talking the same thing from a christian stand point about the middle east. I forget his name but he was head of the CIA once and I have read some of his writings advocating the next World War against the middle eastern countries to bring them more like us. And this man has the ear of Bush. And in the end is he all that different from the ones you quote.

Hayes, it is indeed a serious problem and I agree it is a long term problem but then again there are short term remedies that can be applied to bring about the desired long term solution.
Yes, the US should have been awakened to the fact that we are just as open to these attacks as the rest of the world but unfortunately many have forgotten, or gone back to sleep, as they did after the Embassy bombings, the Cole attack, but then these were not on our soil so to speak so it was sort of a well, at least it's not here. Well it is here and 9/11 spoke loud and clear and again, as I said, too many have forgotten.
It is also unfortunate that many in the rest of the so call civilized world feel that as long as it is somewhere else it's ok. Even if they have a hit they feel that ok, it was once and now they have warned us and we caved in so they won't do it again. WRONG!!.
The rest of the world with the exception of a few countries who have supported us in Iraq would rather sit back and watch, sort of a spectator event, to see who wins. It is these countries that need to wake up and realize that once the strong countries are brought to submission they will be easy, no fight, no long term terror events. All the countries that once joined in with Gulf War should be uniting against these radicals. They give lip service as Moslems and condemn the actions while the terrorist are blowing up their people. It will take a total world effort to rid the world of these radical slime bags.
I read a suggestion to the Islamic would be bombers and their leaders who encourage them to do the deed to be rewarded in the afterlife. It suggested that all these folks gather in a large stadium, with Al Jeezer cameras rolling and blow themselves into the next world to receive their reward since that is what they claim their reasoning to be for such acts. In that way the entire world could cheer them on and they would go out heroes into the next world and there would be no unnecessary loss of life. I agree totally and should it be on PPV I would pay to watch.

MrP
I am not 100% percent sure as to which countries you are refering so I am taking a wild guess at this. If one of these countries include germany then read on if not either stop or read for enjoyment.

What I will say about germany can in some way, not all, be applied to many european countries who opposed the iraqi war. First and probably in some ways foremost is how the germans see war. Their view of war and ours are worlds apart. We glorify it as a way to show our patriotism,ie to die defending our country, but the germans have long given up that notion. To many patriotism is a handshake away from nazism. Since the civil war no generation here has seen or experience war being fought on our soil. Pear Harbor was an attack, I mean a full out long war. How would Americans today react to war if america had been gutted by war like germany was 60 years ago? I could go on but that is not the point here. The point being for germany and many europeans see war much more in a negative light. I mean much more.

Also Germany is not a spectator to the war on terrorism. First if their voice was to count here they would add great weight to those who argue Iraq had and has nothing to do with terrorism. So for them they did 100% support our war on in terrorism when we went into afghanistan and would still probably do so when they see any future war as having to do something with it. And for them by not supporting the war in Iraq was not about not supporting the war on terrorism but about not supporting Bushes desire to go after sadaam for whatever reason or reasons they were.

So for them if you ask why dont you support our war on terrorism they would answer we did or do but Iraq is not this war.

And for many Bush did open a can of worms by going into Iraq and it is for him to clean up not them. Spectators would mean they are watching and most are not.

And last France anti-terrorist laws would make a person who thinks our Homeland defense laws are to soft cry with envy.

Hayes, I include all of Europe and for the most part the remainder of what one could call Western countries and if I may include those in the Far East who have paid much lip service to a war on terror but little else. I understand Germany's reluctance to be involved in a wide spread war(they perhaps have forgotten the Olympic bombings which was one of the opening acts of terrorist activity which has spread like a cancer all around the world) however they and the other mentioned countries are going to have to realize that no matter what occured with Iraq, it basically has little to do with the "war on terror" and I use that term loosly for lack of a better word at this point. As I pointed out earlier this is no longer a "war on terror", instead this is an ideological war between two very distint belief systems. One believes in freedom for all, which Europe and others exclaim as well. The other, believes in world domination through any means to establish a world ruled by Allah and those who do not agree will die.
I will wait and see about France's new laws. I wonder if they actually have any teeth or are like the talk the exhibited in WW1 and WW2. Britian supposedly supports us and says it has toughened up on Islamic jihadist but yet they remain free to roam the streets and preach the end of all who do not accept their belief.
The US, I have to say is not too much better. There is an Islamic who is in line for the chaplain's position with the NYFD who claims that the WTC collapse was a US plot to justify war. So much for Homeland security.
I can not see how countries can justify their lack of reaction to any terror act such as the one which occured in Bali only this week. The bombers came in from the Philippines where they were trained by the JL to do such. Those who have the leader of the Jl jailed are wishing to release him early thinking this will releive tension and stop bombings. They need to think twice.
Well, Haynes, we can go on forever on this I suppose. I do appreciate your civil discourse as always. Hopefully we can find a way to stop these animals before they can accomplish their goals.

MrP
I dont know where you get that most european countries are sitting idly by and watching from the sideline. They,at least germany did react to my knowledge. NOw can Germany do a lot more in its own country. Without question!. Germany is still seen as one of the easier countrys to go through. And to make stiffer laws that blurs the line between security and protection of human rights Germany has a huge mental block they must first cross and this block is based on the Holocaust and everything with it and few seem willing to want to do that. But as you so nicely pointed out we could all tighten our laws.

As far as France goes they have some of the harshest laws in europe and apparently with teeth as france has some of europes lowest numbers of terrorists activities. To put it in a nut shell France has a person in charge of anti-terrorism who apparently is a power and law onto himself. He answers to noone and can hold and has held people for long period of times without being charged with a crime. He may even question the person without a lawyer for up to 24 hours. And if he, not a judge feels the person is guilty then he can send him to jail.

And to think that the UN allows France to get by with having a man like this in charge and actually do it. The US gets nailed to a cross and then some wonder why I feel as I do.
As one article written since the Bali bombing this week stated, Condemning the terrorist will do no good. All those calling for condemnation need to put some action behind the words. I agree.
Everything seems to blur back to Iraq and countries avoidance of participation. It makes no difference if any of the European countries take an active role in that in-country stuggle. The focus needs to be taken off Iraq by these countries and they need to take a look at what surrounds that country and who is giving the manpower and money to supply terrorist. Cut the heads of the mulit-headed snake and the rest will die. The pressure must come from Europe and others, not the US, in order to decapitate the beast. Thanks again Hayes.

Right. Iraq is a huge distraction, not only tying down US military assets and diverting our focus from the terrorists who attacked us -- but harming our relationships with our traditional allies, who backed us in Afghanistan but now oppose our mission in Iraq.

That's why I said we shot the wrong dog.

I was never reflexively against the war in Iraq, I'm a pragmatist, it didn't seem like the sensible course for us to take -- in some part because of the issues just discussed.

Nevertheless, we are there, and we'll be there for a while in one way or another. What a mess. How do we move ahead, with our allies, to address the real threats around the world?

There was a man walking down a hot, dry, dusty road carrying several large bundles thrown over his shoulders on his way to a market in the town. Two men, traveling in the same direction came upon him and said, "Old man why do you carry such a burden on such a hot day, why don't you lay one down and return later in the cool of the day and retrieve it and carry it to you destination." And they passed on
Soon another man came upon the man and asked the same question and said the same thing to the old man, and passed on.
The day grew hotter and the man grew more weary under his heavy burden, but he struggled on.
Soon a man traveling in the opposite direction came upon the old man and stopped him and asked where he was going. The old man replied, "I have much that is needed for those in the market place in town and I must get see that they arrive before the night comes." The stranger felt compassion for the old man and said, "Let me help you with your burden." The old man replied, "But you are going in the opposite direction and you seem to great a man to be helping me."
The stranger replied, "Yes, but the things that you carry are the things which are needed by many, so I will help you complete your journey, mine can wait." Together the stranger and the old man carried the great the large bundles into the town, arriving just as the sun was setting. The old man, opened his bundles, and set lamps about and lit them so that they gave light and he spread them through out the market so that those who were in darkness could now see by the light that he had brought.
So you see, the men who were on their way to the market were in a great hurry and and had another agenda to complete, they must buy their wares before the darkness set in, so on they hurried, not knowing or caring what the old man carried in his bundles. The stranger, knew nothing of what the old man carried but he took time from his journey to return to the market in the town, carrying part of the old mans burden, and in doing so, helped to bring the light to the rest of the shoppers, even those who had without care, passed by only to hurry into the darkness.

MRP / HAYES = great discussion.

MPR, your last post: "on they hurried, not knowing or caring what the old man carried in his bundles."

.. wholey supported Haye's statement

"... to go off half cocked and hit any country we may think or have on a low level al.qaida connections may make us feel good about the short term but will only proove to a catastrophic for us in the long term because all we are doing is feeding their available sources"

Which is what Ed COne and I have also said.

For What it's worth:

Cheney has Flip-Flopped on his "Infidels in there last throes" statement:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4314234.stm

"US Vice-President Dick Cheney has said that the US must be prepared to fight the war on terror for decades."

JDR, it is indeed enjoyable and educational to have a discussion with someone like Hayes who does not attempt to find some little something to pick at which usually is not relevant to the overall discussion. As you can see Hayes and I pretty much agree on the basic issues. You will also note that we have seperated Iraq and what for the lack of a better phrase, "war on terror". The point of the parable I used was intended to point out this separation or need for such. Those traveling to the market only had one thing in mind, the market. The man traveling in the opposite direction has seperated himself from the market and could see a need to help. When he and the old man arrived at the market, the stranger saw what the old man had was necessary for the market to continue . Those who have passed on Iraq, must now focus on what the reality of the big picture is and that is a conflict with two totally different ideologies. One set on destroying any and all freedom by any means possible and the other set on stopping this from happening. If they continue to pass because of the focus on the market(Iraq) then they will find that the market can not operate because there is no light(the radical Islamic's will close the gates except only to those who are as they are.)
It has been a great time. I have enjoyed it totally. Thanks for the civility shown in this discussion. I hope that all of us have learned from the other and that we will take time to look at all the views and not just focus on getting to the market.