it didn't start with 9/11... a must read...

[pappy]

Most of you do not know Rufus Honeycutt, but he was a Marine trooper with
ground radar in 1965 in RVN... the below are his words...  words of wisdom indeed.

"Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we
know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are
very  few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who
realize  what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics

1.  When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11th, 2001.  The answer as far as the United States
is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following
attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut,Lebanon Embassy 1983;
Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to
New York 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi
Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York
World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist
attacks worldwide).

2.  Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.  The attacks happened
during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush #1,  Clinton
and Bush #2.  We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as  there
were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate
predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3.  Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4.  What is the Muslim population of the World?

25%

5.  Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material.  There is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the
dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no
difference.  You either went along with the administration or you were
eliminated.  There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for
political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).
( http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm). Thus, almost the same number
of  Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who
were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish
atrocities.  Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no
hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews
or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists.  They focus the world on the US, but kill
all in the way - their own people or the Spanish,! French or anyone else..

The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection
to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be,
they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what
they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements - killing
all of us infidels.  I don't blame the peaceful Muslims.  What would you do
if the choice was shut up or die?

6.  So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the
Muslim terrorists.  Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing
this conclusion can well be fatal.  There is no way to win if  you don't
clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

  So with that background, now to the two major questions

1.  Can we lose this war?

2.  What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the
major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the
answer to the second question - What does losing mean?  It would appear that
a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads,
bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam.
This is as far from the truth as one can get.  What losing really means is
we  would no longer be the premier country in the world.  The attacks will
not subside, but rather will steadily increase.  Remember, they want us
dead, not just quiet.  If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have
produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years.
The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and
submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of
reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot
help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time.  It will
be increasingly easier for them.  They already hold Spain hostage.
It  doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its
troops from Iraq.  Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed  their
train and told them to withdraw the troops.  Anything else they  want Spain
to do, will be done.  Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France.  Our one hope on France is that they
might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they! are finished
too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us.
However, it may already be too late for France  France is already 20%
Muslim and fading fast.  See the attached article on the French condition
by Tom Segel.

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will
all vanish as we know it.  After losing, who would trade or deal with us if
they were threatened by the Muslims.  If we can't stop the Muslims, how
could anyone else?  The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and
therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost.  We better  know
it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing?  Simple.
Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100%
of our thoughts and efforts into winning.  And it is going to take that 100%
effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?  Again, the answer is simple.  We can lose the
war by imploding.  That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the
enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full  support to
the war effort.  If we are united, there is no way that we can  lose.  If we
continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life
and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.
Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between
17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling.  Does
that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?
This is war.  For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the
civil rights we have become accustomed to.  We had better be prepared to
lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all
of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope.  We gave up plenty of civil
rights during WWII and immediately restored them after the victory and, in
fact, added many more since then.  Do I blame President Bush or  President
Clinton before him?  No, I blame us for blithely assuming we  can maintain
all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights  during this
conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war.  None of  those words
apply to war.  Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the
Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us
lose.  I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal.  It is
because they just don't recognize what losing means  Nevertheless, that
conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening,
it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media
regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best
what I am saying.  We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of
a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small group of our military police.
These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their
own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues
and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam
Hussein.  And just a few years ago these same type  prisoners chemically
killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason.
They are also the same type enemy fighters who recently were burning
Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.
And still more recently the same type enemy that was and is providing
videos  to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of an American
prisoner they held.  Compare this with some of our press and politicians who
for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the
"humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging
their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but
"humiliating" them.  Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the
Secretary of Defense.  If this doesn't show the complete lack of
comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are
fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results
of losing this war, nothing can.  To bring our country to a virtual
political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero
playing his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in
the real world.  Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this
internal strife.

Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media
people are disloyal.  It simply means that they absolutely oblivious to the
magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists
have been pushing us for many years.  Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated
goal is to kill all infidels.  That translates into all  non-Muslims - not
just in the United States, but throughout the world.
We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant'.  That charge is
valid in at least one respect.  We are arrogant in that we believe that we
are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all
those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can
defeat anything bad in the world.  We can't.  If we don't recognize this,
our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the
World will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow
freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the
press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any
status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that
contributes to the good of the World.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we
will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the
Roman Empire.  If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books  to
be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims
take over France in the next 5 years or less.  They will continue to increase
the  Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little
on the  established French traditions.  The French will be fighting among
themselves  over what should or should not be done, which will continue to
weaken them  and keep them from any united resolve.
Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external
military force.  Instead, they give their freedoms away,  politically
correct piece by politically correct piece.  And they are  giving those
freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they  abhor freedom
and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they  are in power.
They have universally shown that when they have taken over,  they then start
brutally killing each other over who will be the few who  control the
masses.  Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct,  about the
"peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above.  If we are
united, there is no way that we can lose.  I believe that after the
election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical
situation we are in and will unite to save our country.  It is your future
we are talking about.  Do whatever you can to preserve it."

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Was this published?

"And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow
freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the
press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any
status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that
contributes to the good of the World."

Maybe Turkey.

 

[Vigilant]

Turkey is ruled by a military junta. If it were not for them, Turkey would not be a member of NATO.

Say what you want about military dictatorships, sometimes they work.

 

[EW]

Hmmmmm,

I certainly agree with point number one.  Not sure if you've seen the books written by Robert Baer, a retired CIA ops officer, who makes several good cases that Iran is, and has been for some time, the greatest threat to the United States, or any other Western nation that tries to have influence in the Middle East or SW Asia.  He claims (rather convincingly - given that he was fighting the silent war for several decades) that the Iranian sponsorship of Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations, should have been addressed 15 or 20 years ago.

He doesn't go easy on the Royal Saudi family either, by turning a blind eye to Muslim extremists plying their warped teachings in Saudi schools.

I don't agree with such a blanket disapproval of Muslims though.  As Baer points out, Iran and Saudi Arabia are a danger to western countries because they allow (or outright sponsor) Muslim extremists to operate.

One thing that is certain about civilization is change.  The U.S. and Canada are relatively new states.  Lets not forget that several hundred years ago it was the white Christians who were taking over nations and governments in the name of their religon.

The one thing that has kept the U.S., Canada, and any of the great European democracies safe from internal subversion (in modern times) is that like most democracies have kept the separation of church and state.  

I certainly hear what you are saying, and yes, the immigration patterns have changed away from Europe and more towards the developing/poor countries, but changing immigration patterns are not new.  Unless the U.S. and Canada are willing to trash their constitutions than you will see more people who are Muslim elected to Congress and to Parliament because that will be their electoral base.

You are right in that democracies can not be complacent they always have to be on guard against any move from within to diminish or destroy their core values.  In my humble opinion the only way to keep extremists from hijacking our governments is to keep religion out of government.  I don't care what the racial background of my member of Parliament is, but if I ever caught him/her using religion (any religion) as a basis of their voting or motions, than they lose my vote, and they should be heavily censored by Parliament.

You may see a threat in the Muslim population today, but what about tomorrow.  The biggest challenge to the U.S. will likely be China, not the Middle East.  Muslim extremists weren't the first ones on the Canadian radar in the past 30 years, it was Sikh extremists who brought their conflicts to Canadian shores with numerous confrontations in western Canada and lets not forget the Air India bombing.  And, nowadays there is very little conflict (at least not on the scale it was in the eighties) within the Sikh community, and they have elected several members to Parliament with barely a ripple of excitement.   They (like the Irish, Italians, French, English, Ukranians, etc etc etc) are well on their way to being a part of the great Canadian mosaic.

Sound a little too optimistic?   The very idea of democracy is an optimistic one to start with.

I don't know many Muslim's in my private life, but I have served with some darn fine ones in the CF, and they remind me of almost any other Canadian teenagers, and are very proud first generation Canadians.  I have also worked with people in the U.S. military who are also excellent soldiers, and by coincidence Muslim.

 

[Acorn]

Where do I stary?

Well, let's look at this first:

2.  Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.  The attacks happened
during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush #1,  Clinton
and Bush #2.  We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as  there
were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate
predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

Why does this little bit of bovine excreta continue? I would guess because Americans (and other Westerners - Canadians aren't immune) truly believe that everyone wants to be them. Envy is hardly the reason why we were attacked (I say "we" because I beleive that 9-11 was an attack on the West, not just the US).

As for "no provocation" that merely illustrates a normal lack of understanding of the enemy. Which brings us to another point: if you can't understand them, you aren't going to defeat them.

I think Rufus Honeycutt lacks wisdom. A great deal.

Acorn

 

[BKells]

When did it start? How about in 1953 when the CIA overthrew it's first government, the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran. Look into it.

 

[Zartan]

From what I've seen, read and heard, the terrorists still have a bone to pick over the Crusades.

Also, remember that Islamic terrorists are called "Muslim Extremists" for a reason. They are the in the extreme of their people and their views. The Iranians I know hate the mullahs and the Ayatollah (in the words of a friend: "He's worse than the shah"). Also, many members of Al-Qaeda belong to a sect of Islam known as Wahhabism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism. As a last note, not everyone in a muslim country is a muslim. What about the Christians of Lebanon, or the Baha'is and Zoroastrians of Iran?

 

[Infanteer]

First off, good to see you back Pappy.

Now, let's examine a few basics:

1.   When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11th, 2001.   The answer as far as the United States
is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following
attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut,Lebanon Embassy 1983;
Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to
New York 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi
Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York
World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist
attacks worldwide).

Although this is a good arguement for how the US has slowly got pulled into the Middle East, it ignores the fact (In My Honest Opinion) that this is a Civilizational Clash a la Samuel Huntington.   The others are right, there are many instances of US involvement in Dar al Islam prior to the fall of the Shah and it is foolish to think that the Islamic Insurgency is fighting against the US - they are fighting against the West, the US just happens to be the standard bearer right now.

2.   Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.   The attacks happened
during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush #1,   Clinton
and Bush #2.   We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as   there
were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate
predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

As Acorn pointed out, this is a pretty weak argument and smacks of a Western/US "center-of-the-universe" mindset - one that leads us into underestimating our foes.   An Afghan warrior, who relied on his faith and his tribal belonging to throw out the Soviet invader, isn't going to suddenly bring up Google and say "dammit - what's this liberalism crap!?!".   The motives of the various groups that are fighting the Islamic Insurgency are complex and varied - and not all of them revolve around the prosperity of the United States.

3.   Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

Yes - as I said, civilizational clash.

4.   What is the Muslim population of the World?

25%

Yes, but you can say that "the West" probably constitutes a bit under 20% (a few countries, like Japan, are debatable).   Can you paint the motives/outlooks/viewpoints of these Billion or so Westerners with a simply question and answer?   I thought not.

5.   Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material.   There is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the
dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no
difference.   You either went along with the administration or you were
eliminated.   There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for
political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).
( http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm). Thus, almost the same number
of   Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who
were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish
atrocities.   Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no
hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews
or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists.   They focus the world on the US, but kill
all in the way - their own people or the Spanish,! French or anyone else..

The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection
to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be,
they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what
they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements - killing
all of us infidels.   I don't blame the peaceful Muslims.   What would you do
if the choice was shut up or die?

Boy, Godwin's Law got enacted pretty quick here.   Painting the complex mosaic of interests/motives of the Islamic Insurgecy as akin to that of the Nazi dicatorship hijacking the German state is pretty weak as well.   To assume that there is simply "good" and "bad" Muslims/Iraqis/Nazis/Aliens/Turds in the Toilet is probably a good way to lose the war.

6.   So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the
Muslim terrorists.   Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing
this conclusion can well be fatal.   There is no way to win if   you don't
clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

Muslim terrorists?   Gee, that's like saying Christian Cavalry - again, too simplistic.   I detailed my thoughts on the complexity of the Islamic Insurgency here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30081.0.html

So with that background, now to the two major questions

1.   Can we lose this war?

yadayadayada.....

Since I don't find his underlying premise very compelling, I couldn't ever read through the rest of this.

Infanteer

 

[pappy]

I thought this an interesting perspective, thats why I posted it.  I can't say he's spot on on every point he made.  As to other peoples comments regarding when it started, someone mentioned the overthrow of the Shan, yes I have to agree that certinly didn't help in the least.  But I think as others have said, this can be traced back to the Ottoman Empire falling apart around WW1 and the western powers cuting up the middle east into nice little slices, without regard to actual religious culture and ethic groups, I.E. Kurds, Shunis, Shites, etc, etc.  Peacemeal partioning radomly certinly has caused a lot of strife.  And also even as far back as the Cursades.

Let's not forget one of Osama Bin Laden's goal in the return of parts of Europe control by the Moores / Ottoman Empire (yeah I know My Spelling sucks... :0)  YOu guys know what I mean. 

History always seems to come back and bite us on the arse.  There is and always will be conflict between nations for numorous reasons.  I don't think any one nation on earth is free from hate for someone, enough hate to start and continue wars for 1000's or reasons.

I don't think all muslims are "bad", that would be quite a reach.  In reality a small number.  Extreamist come is all colors, flavors and nationalitys.

as the saying goes "friends come and go, but Enimies Accumulate"

The west has it's share of enimies in the middle east, Saudi Aribian, Iran, Syria, each of these could easyily be considered more dangerous then Iraq is or was.  But we have to stop somewhere.  If a larger war in the middle east comes, and I don't doubt it will in time, Iraq was and sadly still is a thorn in our side.  WE have to have some place to start.  Over simplifaction to say the least. 
But the point I'm trying to make can be explianed by looking at WW2, the US invaded Marroco in North Africa, to begain the fight againest Rommel. Don't think Morroco was much a threat to the US then, but they had to start someplace.

This current war is not going to be settled quick, no instant gratifaction for the Gen Xer's.  It had to start somewhere, Right or Wrong Bush choose Iraq and Afganistan...
I don't fault him for the choice, but I do have issues with the inadiquite number of troops on the ground.  The day after 9/11 every abled bodied male in the US should have been drafted.  Overwhelming force should have been the only option.  But sadly the polical climate in the US prevents this, and may be a very big mistake.  Only time and history will tell.

Personaly I think its only a matter of time before a nuclear war breaks out between the west and the (fill in the blank of your enemy of choice in the Middle east / Far east)

hopefuly I'll be wroung.


Pardonly my carp spelling, one too many bears, but what can I say a young lady was buying me dinner.  That little pixie I think is trying to get me drunk and take advantage of me....  I'm off to let her    ;D

Semper Fi

 

[Slim]

The article writer does make one very valid and strong point though...None of this is going to go away and we need to deal with it...Not hope that the terrorists will get tired and go on to something else.

Slim

 

[EW]

I'd argue that Bush didn't choose Afghanistan.

Afghanistan made that choice for him, when the Taliban decided to give shelter to Al Qaeda, and than refused to eject them from Afghanistan (or turn Usama Bin Laden over to the US) after 9/11.  Up until that point neither Clinton or Bush (or the European leaders) were able to get support for a full out effort against Al Qaeda.  9/11 was far from the first time Bin Laden was known to have killed Americans, it was however the most spectacular, devastating, and on American soil (if one ignores the first attempt to down the World Trade Center).

Bush made the decision about Iraq though.

 

[paracowboy]

frankly, I don't care when it started. I'm more interested in NOW and the future. As in: how can I put a stop to it NOW, so that it doesn't affect my children's future? How many people do I have to kill NOW, so they won't be killing people in the future?

 

[Wayne Coady]

Well paracowboy I see where you are comming from now and I better understand your controlling mentality. You just made it easier for me to understand why political parties are important to you, you enjoy how they destroy people and get away with it. You best get rid of that killer instint, it will get you in big trouble some day.
I bet bet you are a strong Christian too, go to church every Sunday , have your sins forgiven , thus clearing the path to create new sins. All you ever do is slam other cultures and religions, why don't you try to get alone, it might make you a happier little man.

 

[dutchie]

Well paracowboy I see where you are comming from now and I better understand your controlling mentality. You just made it easier for me to understand why political parties are important to you, you enjoy how they destroy people and get away with it. You best get rid of that killer instint, it will get you in big trouble some day.
I bet bet you are a strong Christian too, go to church every Sunday , have your sins forgiven , thus clearing the path to create new sins. All you ever do is slam other cultures and religions, why don't you try to get alone, it might make you a happier little man.

Wayne - Do you have anything to say that is not related to Canadian Political parties, Agent Orange, or Bush? We have heard your opinion about a hundred times now. We get it, now shut it.

Contribute in a meaningful way here, or PISS OFF Troll!

 

[Gouki]

Wayne, if I provide the circular power saw will you please cut off your hands to prevent you from spouting your incessant garbage?

This is a GD internet forum not a platform for you to go on and on (and on) about your damned political beliefs in every single place you happen to appear. You have taken the horse, shot it in the face, flogged it after it bled to death, jumped on it a few times, backed your pickup truck over it and have lit on fire for good measure. Now you are kicking the ashes around.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SHUT UP AND TURN THE SWITCH TO OFF FOR A DAY.

 

[Wayne Coady]

So you reserve the right to free speech, your rants have not been very constructive and you fail to produce any worth while suggestions, all you do is bitch and wine.  :boring:

Are you sure this is a site that promotes free speech or is it a site that supports hate, are you sure you understand what a discussion is? I was following the post and you jump in with your childish name calling and ranting, put something productive that contributes to the debate up please.

The level of intelligence is shown by your chain saw mentality. Being nasty and ignorent only tells me what kind of controlling person you are or want to be. I am sure this is a political form, not the rude form , maybe you should start a name calling topic.

 

[Gouki]

Wrong. You are the one doing the bitching and whining, Coady. It never seems to stop with you. Canadian politics this, Canadian party that, throw in some Bush and sprinkle a bit of Agent Orange.

The level of intelligence is actually not shown in my saw post to you. Why? Because I know your type (and with each post you make you confirm it to me more and more) and I don't feel like exerting intelligence to deal with you. Because you are like the train that just keeps going and going and going despite the bridge ahead being out, and nothing anyone says or does will stop you until you careen off that metaphorical bridge and into the canyon below.

Also noticed the controlling comment, you also called paracowboy the same. Is this going to be the new horse you'll flog to dust and bone?

 

[1feral1]

Hey Lads, we are giving this Canadian 'political' prisinor an audience, and thats what he wants. Its just a matter of time until the Mods are on to him and give him his just rewards.

His agenda is to give us a hard time, and he is getting off doing it. Best to ignore him, and like a case of 'the trots' he'll go away. He seems to be getting some kind of perverse pleasure out of it.

 

[Wayne Coady]

Steve: Well now that you got that off your chest, when are you going to stop the childish comments and post on topic. The topic is " It didn't start with 911 "  so if it didn't , then when did it start and who started it, can you answer the question?
Please I am not going to enter your name calling silly game.

 

[dutchie]

Are you sure this is a site that promotes free speech

Promote free speech? Maybe. Practice free speech? Nope. This is a privately owned site. There is no free speech here, we are all the guests of Mr. Bobbitt in his 'house'.

are you sure you understand what a discussion is?

Did you read the title of this thread? What do the 'evil Canadian political parties' have to do with the war between Islamic extremists and the West? As recceguy said, "Kettle, this is Pot, over." Get a grip, man.

In case you haven't noticed, this is 'Army.ca', not 'Disgruntled-Worker-Turned-Political-Failure-Wearing-Tinfoil-Hat.ca'. We are not the audience for you! You are pissing up the wrong tree, please go away, or start a new thread called "Wayne Coady's Meandering Rants that Go No-Where'.

Now go away.

PS-  sorry Wes, just saw your post, but posted this anyway....