Saudi Broadcasts Promote Anti-Semitism, Martyrdom

[Jeff Thomas]

One point about "raghead" ... it has been customary in war to disparage one's blood enemies. Japs, Nips, Krauts, and much worse have been used to describe those enemy soldiers that we trained to destroy. And, it obviously isn't just Americans that naturally use this technique.

Now, perhaps "raghead" is not descriptive enough, and we need a better epithet. "Islamist" is certainly too long, and much too kind. After all ... we're talking about naming savages that teach their children to hate us, and our allies, from birth.

So, perhaps we can have a TFL contest to "Rename the Raghead", eh?

Sophomoric? I don't think so. We need to kill these people before they kill us, and frankly ... I think most Americans "get it". Let's not trot out the absurdity of being willing to destroy these savages, but being unwilling to call them names ...

Regards from AZ

 

[JimDiver]

I am not fond of religion. Islam is one I really distrust and have major problems with.

I agree with having nicknames for the evil.... especialy for this enemy we have done it for just about every war. Why for the radical followers of allah? Simple. They are particurarly ruthless, nasty, and savage. Proof? Forcing girls in a burning school to burn to death because they did not have on the proper dress. Buying air time on OUR TV stations to play lies and propoganda. Holding telethons to gather funds to support the suicide bombers in Israel... the list goes on for pages.

The only thing that the Saudis have done that I agree with is that they have banned Pokemon.

Rags and raghead terms are a bit too broad.

Let us find a diferant term, but one that fits.

 

[Kaboom]

If everybody would get their heads rooted in reality, they would see what a farce all religion is. The ones who preach do a better job of turning everyone against each other than polititions do. Just because there are some who can't fathom the fact that they may have evolved fron a slug, want to believe in divine intervention. That they really evolved from whale manure never enters their minds. It doesn't matter what form religion takes it is all absolutely bogus. Flame away, truth is never easy to confront.

 

[gburner]

Some points after lurking.....

By coming up with a perjorative word to describe the enemy, you dehumanize him. This makes him easier to kill without remorse, including the innocents that get thrown into the mix. We need not demonize them any further than their actions have already done. By brainwashing the women and children in their communities, they have eliminated any innocents. They have mobilized their entire population.

IMHO, we as a group are frustrated that there seem to be no pitched battles in the traditional sense, with it's daily combat film footage and reportage. I think we would like to see the heads of our enemies on the ends of pikes, but all we get is footage of empty caves. Meanwhile, there is the very real spectre of the two WTC towers crashing over and over again.

As regards religeon, there is not, never has been nor ever will be tolerant religeous pluralism on this planet. Communal belief systems are as ancient as man and are as basic to tribalism as blood ties. To expect humans in the larger context to rise above this is the equivalent of expecting pigs to fly.

Our enemies today are the same enemies that we have always faced.
Wretched sociopaths that would use any means to advance their agenda.
Twisted psychopaths that are all too willing to carry out whatever heinous act their masters call for.
Deluded idealists that believe that it is their one duty on earth to impose their belief system on the rest of the world by any means necessary.
Political/social elitists that play the duplicitous game of statecraft with us while encouraging their people to whip themselves into a frenzy of anti western hysteria, thus taking the spotlight off of them and their own abuse and neglect of their people.

I am in complete agreement with those who would use all means at our
disposal to prosecute this war vigorously and terminate our enemies large and small with EXTREME prejudice. If at all possible, they will nuke us, they will gas us, they will plague us, without mercy for our innocents, women or children.
They will attempt to kill us one at a time or in groups. This attitude was clearly demonstrated on 9/11 and should have set the ground rules for our response. They have sowed the wind, let them reap the whirlwind.
Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war!

 

[Jeff Thomas]

Kaboom, no flames necessary. Regardless of your perspective or mine on religion, it will exist ... just as firearms cannot be uninvented. If the existence of religion is simply part of the human reality, debate seems somewhat pointless, no?

Deluded idealists that believe that it is their one duty on earth to impose their belief system on the rest of the world by any means necessary.

Well put, gburner. But I'll still vote for a pejorative ... and, frankly, one will rise to common use whether we want it or not -- it is what human beings do in war.

Regards from AZ

 

[Marko Kloos]

"Straw man"?

All I see here are pseudo-intellectual attempts to rationalize the incineration of innocents, by trying to make the argument that those "savages" really have no innocents among their ranks. You need to do that, so you can still look at yourself in the mirror after the nukes start flying. I don't see many attempts at making a distinction between fanatical religious loonies, and innocent civilians...all I see are rationalizations why there are no innocents in those countries, and why we don't have to let our conscience bother us if we just bless all Muslim countries with a few megatons of fireworks. Anyone who voices dissent gets branded as "PC" and a "moral relativist". Do you have any idea about the nature of morality?

Yes, Islamic radicals want to see us dead, and I fully support hunting them down and killing them. But we lose our moral high ground when we say that killing innocents along the way is justifiable, because most of them hate us anyway. All you're doing is offering a torturous explanation as to how there really are no "innocents".

'Wollt Ihr den totalen Krieg?"

:barf:

 

[Art Eatman]

Seems to me there's more argument over what somebody thinks somebody else believes, rather than over what's actually meant.

WW I & WW II were easy. There was a clearcut national enemy or enemies. Demonizing was both easy and reasonably accurate, as to "Kraut" or "Jap", etc.

Now? We're in a situation we're totally unused to, with relatively small groups of people from various countries coming together in hatred of us.

Hard to demonize "a few..." Saudis, Iraqis, Afghanis, Pakis...

Probably better to pick some word like "Twerp" as a generic label for "Radical Islamic that wants to kill non-Islamics".

To come closer to home and some first hand knowledge: I've known ranchers to hire illegal aliens to work for them. I've seen them pay for medical care and do other good deeds for their hired hands that, technically, they did not need to do. However, they referred to these hired hands as Wetbacks.

Some illegals who come through the rangeland steal. The same ranchers curse them as Wetbacks.

And these ranchers see no dichotomy. In their minds, there are "Good" wets and "Bad" wets. Regardless, they're ALL "Wets".

We're faced with the same problem, here at TFL. Folks are using various pejoratives in one manner, and others are interpreting in another manner.

So, maybe, my idea of "Twerps" ain't so bad?

, Art

 

[RON in PA]

Let me make an historical analogy. In 1933 a minority party managed to take over the nation of Germany. The Nazis then rewrote the laws to impose their racial and economic philosophy on the rest of Germany. If there was any objection people went to places like Dachau. The result of all this was WW2 and among other things the destruction of German cities and infrastucture due to mass bombings by the Allies and post-war occupation and de-nazification.

So a minority ultimately caused the destruction of a nation. Today the Islamists will bring the same destruction to the rest of Islam.

 

[gburner]

We will have scant comfort claiming the 'moral high ground' as we bury
our wives, mothers, sisters and children. Those who would ascribe some high, moral purpose to what we have embarked on are sadly mistaken.
It is killing time, pure and simple.
It is not moral, it is not even human. It is in fact repulsive and barbaric, but it is what is called for. Not because we want it, sought it, find pleasure or glory in it or because we take upon ourselves the cloak of 'moral authority' and deem it rightous. This goes much deeper than all of that. The 3,000 + people murdered on 9/11 were not combatants. They were you and me; husbands, wives, children, Joe and Jane Six-pack. They did nothing wrong that day but get up and go to work. When they died, part of each of us died along with them. Now it is time to visit the heaviest possible retribution upon those who, either by design or default, made it possible for this hideous indecency to happen. From the leaders of the countries that whip the froth of hatred to its' murderous head to the women who sing, chant and praise Allah for the carnage wrought upon us, to the children in the madrassas who are brainwashed into mindless, virulent hatred, to the men who plot, plan and carry out these dispicable acts; they all have got to go. They have to go because they have no qualms about doing anything they deem necessary to kill as many of us as possible. Only a massive display of brute force coupled with national unity and resolve will be adequate to the task of insuring that, in the future, others who would see us dead would sooner cut their own hands off than raise them against us. This is not sport, this is not gamesmanship. This effort needs to be persued in deadly earnest without the constraints, no matter how well intentioned, of a 'moral compass'; no rules, no rule book, no referee.

The last thing I want as my Country's epitaph is, 'they held the moral highground'. The highground is usually where you find the cemetery.

 

[Tamara]

gburner,

The 3,000 + people murdered on 9/11 were not combatants. They were you and me; husbands, wives, children, Joe and Jane Six-pack. They did nothing wrong that day but get up and go to work.

I completely understand. I watched the same TV reports you did that morning. I screamed for bloody vengeance as loud, or louder, than you. It is a good thing for this planet that I was not in control of this nation's nuclear arsenal at 1200 hours EDT on 09/11/01.

However...

Later, in the light of cool reason, we stop and think: Murdering 3,000,000 innocent non-combatants, including Mr. and Mrs. Hafid Hummus and their 2.5 children, guilty of no crime other than opening their falafel stand in the morning, who had nothing to do with 9/11, makes us different from the animals who perpetrated that attack how, exactly? There is moral relativism for you; dead innocents are bad when deliberately murdered by Al Queda, but peachy keen when screamed for by Joe Sixpack.

Find the killers. Kill them. Find those who harbor or support the killers. Kill them, too. If a nation state is supporting them, invade it, depose its' leader, destroy its' military. Unleash the dogs of war. But my nation is not the one that conducts the Rape of Nanking, the Katyin Forest or Malmedy Massacres. My nation fights against those people. Civilians are sometimes killed during our military operations, yes, but never as the intended targets! That's what makes this country different from the sandbox despots we fight, and their nations.

Else I may as well move there, as there'll be no difference worth mentioning any more.

 

[Don Gwinn]

All I can tell you, Gburner, is that if you don't want the moral high ground, so be it. But you're on your own. Every crisis of every moment is someone's excuse to abandon morality in one way or another. Morality would be cheap indeed if it were abandoned every time a war came along.

Jeff, all I can say is that I don't believe you. I don't know that you're necessarily saying anything dishonest, but if not, you've missed a lot of threads.

I don't see many who claim that all, or even most Muslims are Islamists. And, I saw no one claim that all Arab media is the same.

Jeff, if you don't know that both those things have been claimed several times on TFL alone, you've missed some threads.

As for "moral relativism," that's a bad joke. It doesn't apply here. "Moral relativism" is to treat two groups the same even though one is morally superior, generally because you don't want to "judge" anyone. It is also an oft-repeated buzzword that has become the kind of retreat for the right that "racist!" has long been for the left.

But the argument Lawdog and Lendringser (and I) are making is exactly the opposite. We're trying to get everyone to acknowledge the fact that there are Arabs (and Muslims) who hate us and those who don't. There are those who wear bombs and those who will live their entire lives without hurting anyone. There are many on TFL who advocate that we treat these two groups the same by "nuking all the ragheads." We want to treat them differently instead--which is eminently logical because they are different.


To repeat Lawdog's ignored argument, there are a lot of "gun owners" in the U.S. who own guns only in order to smoke the next fool what wanna be touchin' they crack n' meth crispies. These are murdering, soulless thugs who deserve to die. They aren't a large percentage among gun owners, but there are a large number of them.

Do you deserve to die because you own a gun? Because you listen to the same kinds of music? Because they drive fast cars and you drive a fast car?

Or do they deserve to pay for their crimes, while you deserve to reap the rewards of your good and just life?

 

[gburner]

Ms. Tamara...

Due to the enormous amount of respect I have for you, I am hesitant to take issue with anything you post. However, I would offer that we are a nation that has had its' share of incidents of amoral, barbaric brutality. One such example is the almost complete incineration of every major population center in Germany and Japan during the latter half of WW 2. (and its' wholesale slaughter of civilians).

I'm not talking genocide or the use of nuclear weapons in this current time. I am talking about doing whatever is necessary to impart the lesson that attacks on this nation will result in widespread and dire consequences, up to and including the death of non combatants who support and encourage such attacks.

 

[gburner]

Don,

It's not that I don't want the moral high ground, it's just that I don't see this as a question of morality at all. I am aware that the Islamic world is not monolthic; that there are many among that religion that bear us no ill will. To them I say 'go in peace.' To the others though, no quarter was given by them on 9/11 and no quarter should be expected of us; regardless of the age or gender of the perpetrator or supporter.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Sigh...This to those few to whom it applies....no need to raise your hand(s)...your posts 'shine' thru.

One sign of the unfocused (intolerant? ignorant?) mind is the need to categorize, to sweepingly generalize....to stereotype. It quells the anxiety generated in having to work to root out enemies. It soothes the feeling of helplessness by putting a MASS face to the enemy.

Anyone remember ******s...they were terrible people, those ******s. They were unwashed, hulking, uneducated, aboriginal scum...satiated only by the burning of cities, the plunder of middle class homes and the rape of Christian women. I've met many of them in my day...the vast majority who fit the description were White. The term has fallen into disfavor, not because it is Politically Incorrect, but because it is Sociologically Incorrect....it was inaccurate, unfair and untrue...in short, it's racism without rationale.

Today we face it again....racism without rationale, that is. And for many of the same reasons. Our safe little worlds have been shaken by a minority of people who wish us physical harm. We reel and look to place a face to the enemy...that face becomes the one item they have in common.....they're Ragheads, Islamists, Camel Jocks, Sand ******s. Incapable (or unwilling?) to turn our thoughts to action by taking arms against the enemies we decry (any one of you can afford the plane ticket to do so....arms are readily available upon your arrival there), we resort to words, designed to provoke others to perform the violence we haven't the fortitude to contemplate on a personal level.

Clever ruse, that....if others follow, we get to maintain our "humanity" by claiming "plausible deniability"; if they don't rise to the bait, we get to say "I told you so", in the most somber and officious of tones.

Best of all, in the end you still get to have enemies to hate:
Ragheads
******s
Kikes
Pigs
Peckerwoods
White Trash
Trailer Trash
Congress Criminals
White Supremacists
Domestic Cults

Take your pick, ladies and girls.....there really is no end to unbridled, unfocused fear mongering, so long as the labels are clear enough to evoke an image and unclear enough to allow you to draw the sketches for others to hunt.

Just do us one favor....join the battle you cry so fervently for. Take up your arms and join the fun. Stop screaming for others to do so in your stead. Pick your target, front sight, press......it really is that simple, is it not? I mean, "they're" all around you. In the end, you metamorphose into exactly that which you denounce...people who hate simply on the basis of residence/religion/economic status/[fill in the blank]. Of course, if I am on your jury, you may respectfully defend yourself by stating "They started it".....I will take that into due consideration and then, just as respectfully, ask the Judge the honor of personally Pulling The Switch., thereby proudly joining your list of Enemies.

Short of that, get off my frequency. I'm sickened by some of this garbage.
Respectfully-
Rich Lucibella

 

[Don Gwinn]

am aware that the Islamic world is not monolthic; that there are many among that religion that bear us no ill will. To them I say 'go in peace.' To the others though, no quarter was given by them on 9/11 and no quarter should be expected of us; regardless of the age or gender of the perpetrator or supporter.

Gburner, that makes perfect sense to me. What I don't understand is this: if the quote above is your belief, what is the nature of your disagreement with either Tamara or me? We've been saying exactly that all along. That's why I keep talking about two kinds of Muslims, one group that wants to hurt us and one that doesn't, and the need to treat the two differently. Judging by the quote above, you would seem to be agreeing wholehearted with both of us, so about what are we arguing?

 

[Jim March]

Well here's the tricky question:

"Are a nation's people responsible for the actions of their nation's leadership?"

The entire "free world" generally acts in a way that says they ARE, but don't deal with the full repercussions of that decision.

Example: there is no other justification for the mass civilian bombings by the US during WW2, whether we're talking nukes against Japan, or mass firebombing in Dresden and similar which while slower, was equally lethal.

This is also the basis for the World Bank holding nations liable for debts racked up by tin-pot dictators who flee the country - the nations they leave behind are still liable for debts, on the theory that they were the "legitimate government" at the time the debts were compiled.

But bad news, folks: this is the same sort of thinking that drives terrorism. From Osama Yo Mama's (wrong, mind you) perspective, US civilians are responsible for the actions the Islamists believe are being carried out against Islam by the US Federal Government.

The scary part is that I too have to agree that rotten governments are still the responsibility of the citizenry to deal with. Which is exactly where we get to a "basic human right to arms" - if the PEOPLE of a nation are to be held responsible for the actions of their leaders, then they MUST have the tools available to overthrow said leaders when necessary. When the US, either acting along or via the UN, prevents a nation's people from gaining access to arms, they screw up bigtime, because morally those people CANNOT be held liable for their leader's actions.

See the problem?

The proper way to deal with a jerk like SoDamn Insane of Iraq is to arm the Iraqi people! Kurds and otherwise. The bastard is THEIR problem. If those people allow their problem to become OUR problem, when they have the means to halt their problem, then it's war - all out, no holds barred, civvies-are-gonna-get-hurt WAR.

Now, we held to that doctrine pretty well in Afghanistan. Operating through and in support of locals as we did was proper. We should do the same thing in Iraq, with a difference - the FIRST thing we should do is take a cargo plane fulla surplus bolt-actions with ammo and their own 6ft parachute each and we should carpet-bomb Bagdad with 'em out of C130s or whatever. Or empty out the cheap ground-off-serial-number handguns out of the LAPD properties room and use 'em as "Liberators".

Probably a mix. The whole operation would be cheaper than a couple of cruise missles.

And attached to every single one of these "bangthings from heaven", attach a message in the local language: "Saddam is YOUR problem - solve it, or we will, with nukes. Your choice."

But that takes us to the Palestinians: they ARE armed, to the teeth, and largely support the radicals. Latest polls I've seen of "Palestinians in the street" says they believe the struggle won't be over until they take over the entire pre-Israel land. 61% I think? And they're WELL armed, that's not even an issue.

And Arafat is in it up to his neck.

Does Israel have justification for all-out war? In my view, not until they get those "settlers" out. It's now clear, those morons have to come out of there. Once that happens, if the crap continues...I can see justification for trading a daisy-cutter for every suicide bomber.

War sucks. It doesn't stop until things get too ugly to continue.

 

[ojibweindian]

This is a very simple question. Your family or their family, your country or their country?

If there is a war to be fought, do so ruthlessly, for that is the nature of war. If a people/nation are not willing to be ruthless, then they have no business fighting.

 

[Oleg Volk]

On a pragmatic level:

Let's say somone on the next block shoots at my house. If I hose down that block with a belt-fed till I run out of ammo and water for the cooling jacket, I will have problem #2 on my hands. All the folks on that block who aren't connected to the nutcase who fired the first shots will be a bit upset over their dead relatives...and probably won't much care why I shot up their homes or who started it.

Same problem with defining "them" too broadly. Might serve to eliminate the original culprits but would also make a lot of new enemies. Sometimes that's unavoidable...usually better options exist. So being selective in who we whack is in our self-interest, in the long run.

 

[gburner]

Don,

You can't see the difference in our positions because I don't think there is. I just don't want people believing that the enemy is only male, Muslim and between the ages of 17 and 40. If we truly want to make a difference with this effort we need to embrace te hideous truth that there are women bearing children for the expressed purpose of martyrdom. There are also children, male and female, that will just as aggressively attempt to commit the murder of Americans. These individuals will have to be mercilessly dealt with as they are every bit the threat that their male counterparts are. This is going to be a bloody, savage affair. People need to prepare for this at the outset.

 

[DaveK]

19 more dead today, and one family richer from Saudi and Iraqi funds.

With all due respect Rich, I suggest you go to Israel and tell them it's really only a small minority that's constantly murdering them; I am sure they could stand to benefit greatly from all your self righteous moral insights right about now.

Let me know when you're planning on going Rich, I'm sure you can afford the plane ticket to do so...

Maybe we can talk about the honor of personally "Pulling The Switch" after you get back.

-Dave