If they win … only our dead will be free.

[fhp490]

If they win … only our dead will be free.

These are our enemies.

They have only one idea – to kill, and kill, and kill, until they conquer the world.

Then, by the whip, the sword and the gallows, they will rule.

No longer will you be free to speak or write your thought's to worship god in your own way.

Only our dead will be free.

Only the host who will fall before the enemy will know peace.

Civilization will be set back a thousands years.

Make no mistake about it – you cannot think of this as other wars.

You cannot regard your foe this time simply as people with the wrong idea.

This time you free the world, or else you loose it.

Surely that is worth the best fight of your life – worth anything that you can give or do.


History repeats itself this statement is appropriate.

For the radical Muslims but it was printed by the War department during World War 2 about the Nazis.

 

[Rob P.]

Propaganda in any form by any participant serves only one purpose. To brainwash the uncaring so they will stand aside and let the atrocities commence.

I'm positive that these words or the meaning behind them have been spoken or printed in one form or another back through history. They are the propaganda of choice for those who would commit genocide.

From Bosnia back to King Leonidas and earlier still - death to the unbelievers.

I thought and hoped we were smarter than this.

 

[MicroBalrog]

Atrocities?

Please inform me where any atrocities where mentioned in the article above.

Was it wrong to fight in WWII against the Nazis, fighting until the allied flags waved from the Reichstag, until the US Battleships were parked in Tokyo bay?

Was it wrong that the United States 'forced democracy' on Germany and Japan, that the Japanese and Germans now no longer execute Jews, Koreans, Chinese, Communists, homosexuals, and (yes) gun owners?

Was it wrong that Grant and Sherman destroyed the Confederacy (yes, I know they weren't motivated by destroying slavery, but we all know they did destroy it)?

Just as Nazi Germany was to be destroyed as a government system, just as the system of chattel slavery was to be destroyed, just as Japan's Empire as a system of government had to be destroyed, so must Islamic theocracies fall.

I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

The guy who said this was no 'neo-con' (whatever that is) or 'militarist'. The guy who said this hated standing armies. Is repeating this today wrong?

To quote President Wilson:

The world cannot exist half slave and half free.

You think this doesn't apply today? Why is that?

 

[Marko Kloos]

The Islamic radicals cannot pass legislation to control what I ingest, smoke, carry on my person, drive, say, write, buy, sell or watch on TV. They can't legislate away my right to carry a weapon, and they can't vote themselves the right to half of my paycheck for the rest of my life.

Only my fellow citizens, by way of ganging up together and voting for someone who promises to do all those things on their behalf, can take away my freedom.

Spare me the stretched comparison of radical Islamist terrorism with Hitler and Tojo. The biggest danger of terrorism is that it is being used to justify the incineration of the Bill of Rights, not the threat of Abdullah invading the US and telling me that I have to attend weekly prayers at the mosque.

 

[MicroBalrog]

Oh, yes. The age-old Libertarian claim that our own domestic enemies (American, Israeli, German, whatever) are worse then the Taliban. Remember, this is not about the terrorists - or not about them alone. It's about the governments and societies that sponsor them - Syria, Lybia, Iran, and so forth. Yes, those movements and groups are continously trying to expand their power over more people - violently if need be. And if they win this - yes, they will pass laws regulating what you ingest, what you smoke, and who you have sex with.

Curling up in the fetal position and claiming, despite all facts, that there is no terrorism, that there is no threat from Iran and Syria and Al-Quaeda, is similar to a child thinking that he can 'turn off the light' by closing his eyes.

To quote Vin Suprynowicz - by no means a neo-conservative - "Will [the suicide bomber's] fuse sputter and die because we are 'not at war'?"

If anything, the refusal to acknowledge that yes, yes, yes, we are at war, does not eliminate the threat to liberty - rather, as the war drags on, we become accustomed to the existence of Gitmo's, and we become amenable to more, more, more pressure from the Hillarys and Hatches.

But - and putting aside your unprovable assertion Americans are now less free then in, say, 1970 (in some ways they are more free) - it is still important to notice that if we - Americans, Israelis, Germans, French - act swiftly, aggressively, and decisively, then, yes, we may yet get to win this one, and go home and make our homelands even more free.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Well, then you go ahead and do what you think is necessary to keep your homeland free. MicroBalrog. I'd much appreciate if you didn't lecture me about what constitutes a danger to my freedoms. I believe that from where I sit, I am in a better position to make that judgment.

Curling up in the fetal position and claiming, despite all facts, that there is no terrorism, that there is no threat from Iran and Syria and Al-Quaeda, is similar to a child thinking that he can 'turn off the light' by closing his eyes.

I never claimed that "there is no terrorism". I was apparently too obtuse for you, so let me restate my point in a simpler fashion.

Terrorists are not nation-states. Terrorism is an idea, not a skin color or nationality. You cannot fight terrorism like you would nation-states, and agitprop like the starting post in this thread is nothing more than a ham-fisted attempt to rally the unwashed masses into distilling complex causes and effects into a formula that's easy to grasp. It plays to emotion, not logic and reason.

Do you think you can wipe terrorism off the map if you nuked all the Islamic theocracies in the Middle East? Do you think it will stop when we invade all those countries instead and install pro-Western governments?

There's never an easy solution to a complex problem. This is an issue that simply cannot be distilled into "Nation XYZ are the bad guys, let's kill 'em all and go home". That's the difference between World War II and the War on Terror, and that's what makes the original post in this thread so off the mark.

 

[raktrak]

To MARKO KLOOLESS

I believe I detect, a tendancy on your part to forget the 100 millon people that were being tortured, beaten,raped, and murdered over there. Please if you think it will be better to let that happen, tell us why. I am amazed that people believe we can ignore Iran,Lybia,North Korea etc. and they will go away.We will have to police the world if we are to survive as a people or a country. We are the only ones who can,and we are by our actions,the only Major country that loves freedom and human rights enough to fight the fight. IS FREEDOM EVER EASY?

 

[Rebar]

Terrorism is just a tactic, the core goal of islam, from it's beginning, is the Umma, the worldwide domination of islam and the destruction of any other ideology.

And they are winning. Not the terrorists, but through the west's overly liberal immigration policies, suicidal tolerance, and simple demographics, we'll see France and other European countries become islamic republics in a couple generations. It's inevitable.

America, as we know it, is at a crossroads. If we don't push islam back, like Charles Martel did at Tours and Jan III Sobieski did at Vienna, our western heritage, of freedom and individual rights, will be forever extinguished. This isn't "propaganda", this is historical fact.

 

[Handy]

Raktrak,

Who in the hell are you talking about? Marko speaks about unaffiliated terrorists, and you attack him for something about nation states? He made no mention of the war in Iraq, or even implied it.

This sort of ham-headed thinking is incredibly scary. If you can't even understand the conversation, stay out of it.


Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty, or give me death." That's a far cry from, "Give me security, at the expense of liberty," which seems to be the new rallying cry of people like FHP490 and Raktrak.

Who ARE you people? How did you grow up in America and end up this way?

 

[Derius_T]

raktrak or whatever yor name is,

A rational discussion is always welome here at TFL. But filling half a page with inch high bold letters, screaming incoherencies at someone does nothing to get your point across, whatever it may have been. It is in fact, rude, unnessessary, counterproductive, and to be perfectly honest, it makes you look like a________________.....please refrain.....

 

[MicroBalrog]

You cannot fight terrorism like you would nation-states, and agitprop like the starting post in this thread

First:
You cannot fight terrorism like you can nation-states? Why?

We’re talking about organised terrorism here. Terrorism by particular groups. Of course nothing on Earth can fight people like the Unabomber and McVeigh, who acted individually. With groups like Al-Queda, it’s different.

Does Al-Quaeda not depend on training camps, recruitment centers, laboratories, and so forth? Does the Hisballah (the Party of God) not own, operate, and maintain tanks, artillery, and logistics? Can those training camps, recruitment centers, laboratories not be bombed like the Nazi army camps, weapons factories, and airfields were bombed?

Second, you claim those terrorists are ‘unaffiliated’. This is not true. We know that some of those regimes ARE affiliated with terrorism. The Taliban surely were (think Brigade 055). Iran is affiliated with Hisballah and Al-Quaeda, and so is Syria.

Do you think it will stop when we invade all those countries instead and install pro-Western governments?

I think that we would not see the same organised, well-funded, large-scale terrorist organisation that we see today if we were able to do that.

There's never an easy solution to a complex problem.

“They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers.” – Ronald Reagan.

I'd much appreciate if you didn't lecture me about what constitutes a danger to my freedoms.

So, even though I’m saying the same thing many US commentators (some of them even Libertarians and “liberals”, not just neocons.) are saying, the fact I and not Vin Suprynowicz am saying this, makes my opinion somehow wrong?

Okay. I’ll write my next post and ask an American to post it for me. Maybe that’ll make it acceptable.

P.S. Note, Thomas Paine was British. He knew better than at least 30% of Americans (the Tories) what constituted a 'threat to their liberties'. The message is more important then the messenger.

 

[Redworm]

We will have to police the world if we are to survive as a people or a country.

It's this attitude that will be the downfall of the American Empire. To think that just because we can direct the course of the world gives us the right to actually do so is no better than the Islamic extremists thinking that they have the right to do whatever it is that jihadwatch and others believe they're trying to do.



Safety and freedom for Americans but frack the rest of the world, right?

 

[Handy]

P.S. Note, Thomas Paine was British.

Before 1776, they were all British citizens.

 

[MicroBalrog]

The point is, he didn't live in America when he wrote Common Sense, nor did he need to. And while I by no means think I'm Thomas Paine, I hope you do see my point.

 

[Handy]

I guess I don't. It doesn't matter if Paine was a Martian. That motto has become a thoroughly American slogan that demonstrates our priority of liberty.

Safety without liberty is worthless. Slaves are "safe".


Too many Americans gave up their lives for our freedom for us to crap on their graves now with "National Security" replacing that freedom.

 

[MicroBalrog]

The fact Americans are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is not the REASON for the loss of liberty during the Bush Administration, if any.

It's an EXCUSE. If Americans had been using some other strategy to destroy terrorism, the words 'war on terror' would be still used - just like 'war on drugs', while there's no actual war per se.

The special thing about excuses is that removing them doesn't help. You must remove the REASON.

 

[Handy]

The fact Americans are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is not the REASON for the loss of liberty during the Bush Administration, if any.

I, in no way, implied that current fighting has anything to do with the notion that freedom is a terrible thing to trade away. Your post seems like a non sequiter.

So I'll say it again: Liberty is not something you choose to give up for security. That is how you become a slave. Freedom both entails and demands certain risks.

Islamic terrorists are never going to "destroy America" in our lifetimes. Hell, they can't even manage to destroy Israel. Life might become a little harder because of terrorist acts, but we are not going to be overrun. Anyone who tells you that doesn't understand the relative strengths of the two sides.

 

[MicroBalrog]

I never said they can overrun America.

I do think the Islamic terrorists can (and eventually will) destroy Israel.

In 1973, Israel was only saved by US aid.

Today, Israel's society, military, and government are vastly more inefficient then they were then.

Any form of concerted series of terorist attacks, especially ones involving something on the scale of 9/11 or 'dirty bombs' will destroy us if done right.

And I think the power of those terrorists and their governments will grow if not stopped. They will kill and enslave millions more if nobody stops them.

 

[Marko Kloos]

So you'd like the US to invade and change the government in every country you consider a threat to Israel's safety?

Look: the Middle East has been God's Monkey House since the days of Babylon. If there's one thing that history clearly shows us (beyond the fact that the region will always be a fighting ground), it's that any lasting change needs to come from within, and no lasting change has ever been imposed by an invading army and foreign attempts at nation-building.

Islam is way past due for an internal reformation, much like Christianity experienced five hundred years ago. They need their own Renaissance, and no amount of Western boys with rifles and good intentions is going to accelerate that process. And all the chest-beating aside, "eradicating Islam" is simply not on the list of possible options, either ethically or logistically. There are no easy answers to the dilemma...five thousand years of grudges and land disputes are not going to be resolved in our lifetime.

Another thing that always amazes me is the tendency of some folks to think that they're the only ones who feel strongly about their national sovereignty. Yes, some regimes in the ME are supporting terrorism: we can probably find Saudi Arabia and Iran at the top of that list. But while the population may be split three ways between supporting, opposing or not giving a hoot about the radicals in their midst, one thing is dead certain: if we come in and invade their country in order to depose their government, they will all turn against us. I don't like the current administration, and I don't much care for W as President, but if some foreign nation came and invaded our country in order to depose our President and dictate what we can or cannot do, however good their intentions, I would try and kill as many of the bastards as I could until they're all gone from my country. We sort out our own differences, thank you very much.

Now why do people assume that Middle Easterners have any less intense feelings about their own national sovereignty?

 

[Redworm]

Now why do people assume that Middle Easterners have any less intense feelings about their own national sovereignty?

I do believe it all boils down to religious intolerance, but of course I could be very wrong.