• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

We've learned nothing

Larrry

Well-known member
Eight years ago, our homeland was attacked by fanatical Muslims inspired by Saudi Arabian bigotry. Three thousand American citizens and residents died.

We resolved that we, the People, would never forget. Then we forgot.

We've learned nothing.

Instead of cracking down on Islamist extremism, we've excused it.

Instead of killing terrorists, we free them.

Instead of relentlessly hunting Islamist madmen, we seek to appease them.

Instead of acknowledging that radical Islam is the problem, we elected a president who blames America, whose idea of freedom is the right for women to suffer in silence behind a veil -- and who counts among his mentors and friends those who damn our country or believe that our own government staged the tragedy of September 11, 2001.

Instead of insisting that freedom will not be infringed by terrorist threats, we censor works that might offend mass murderers. Radical Muslims around the world can indulge in viral lies about us, but we dare not even publish cartoons mocking them.

Instead of protecting law-abiding Americans, we reject profiling to avoid offending terrorists. So we confiscate granny's shampoo at the airport because the half-empty container could hold 3.5 ounces of liquid.

Instead of insisting that Islamist hatred and religious apartheid have no place in our country, we permit the Saudis to continue funding mosques and madrassahs where hating Jews and Christians is preached as essential to Islam.

Instead of confronting Saudi hate-mongers, our president bows down to the Saudi king.

Instead of recognizing the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi cult as the core of the problem, our president blames Israel.

Instead of asking why Middle Eastern civilization has failed so abjectly, our president suggests that we're the failures.

Instead of taking every effective measure to cull information from terrorists, the current administration threatens CIA agents with prosecution for keeping us safe.

Instead of proudly and promptly rebuilding on the site of the Twin Towers, we've committed ourselves to the hopeless, useless task of rebuilding Afghanistan. (Perhaps we should have built a mosque at Ground Zero -- the Saudis would've funded it.)

Instead of taking a firm stand against Islamist fanaticism, we've made a cult of negotiations -- as our enemies pursue nuclear weapons; sponsor terrorism; torture, imprison, rape and murder their own citizens -- and laugh at us.

Instead of insisting that Islam must become a religion of responsibility, our leaders in both parties continue to bleat that "Islam's a religion of peace," ignoring the curious absence of Baptist suicide bombers.

Instead of requiring new immigrants to integrate into our society and conform to its public values, we encourage and subsidize anti-American, woman-hating, freedom-denying bigotry in the name of toleration.

Instead of pursuing our enemies to the ends of the earth, we help them sue us.

We've dishonored our dead and whitewashed our enemies. A distinctly unholy alliance between fanatical Islamists abroad and a politically correct "elite" in the US has reduced 9/11 to the status of a non-event, a day for politicians to preen about how little they've done.

We've forgotten the shock and the patriotic fury Americans felt on that bright September morning eight years ago. We've forgotten our identification with fellow citizens leaping from doomed skyscrapers. We've forgotten the courage of airline passengers who would not surrender to terror.

We've forgotten the men and women who burned to death or suffocated in the Pentagon. We've forgotten our promises, our vows, our commitments.

We've forgotten what we owe our dead and what we owe our children. We've even forgotten who attacked us.

We have betrayed the memory of our dead. In doing so, we betrayed ourselves and our country. Our troops continue to fight -- when they're allowed to do so -- but our politicians have surrendered.

Are we willing to let the terrorists win?
 

Liveoak

Well-known member
Hasn't the Saudi government countered terrorism within it's own borders or am I mistaken? All Saudi's are for terrorism or is it just the radical Islamists? Saudi is slowly coming to terms with the problem.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Shirwa Ahmed, a Somali-American from Minneapolis, earned the dubious distinction of being the first known U.S. citizen to become a suicide bomber. "It appears he was radicalized in his hometown in Minnesota," FBI chief Robert Mueller said recently, adding that the FBI was on the lookout for a handful of other young, male Somali-Americans who had gone missing. Ahmed blew himself up last fall, killing about 30 other people in a suicide truck bombing outside Mogadishu, Somalia.

"Radicalized individuals, trained in terrorist tactics and in possession of American passports, can pose a threat,"

Al Qaeda-Linked American Terrorist Unveiled, as Charges Await Him in U.S.

A week after the 9/11 attacks, a young Muslim at the University of South Alabama told the school's newspaper it was "difficult to believe a Muslim could have done this."

Now, eight years later, he is professing to launch attacks himself and calling on others to join the fight, as terror-related charges await him at home in Alabama,

and today the "liberal media" downplays any connection...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Liveoak said:
Hasn't the Saudi government countered terrorism within it's own borders or am I mistaken? All Saudi's are for terrorism or is it just the radical Islamists? Saudi is slowly coming to terms with the problem.

Terrorism is a tool. They don't want it in their own country anymore so than the US. Best way is to, "take the fight to them"

In Iraq, it was a suitable "theatre"

Afghanistan is a quaqmire.

Draw them out to a more suitable enviornment, to fight them.

I hope no one takes this the wrong way, but Afghanistan was not going that bad, until after the emphasis was taken off Iraq.

Canada was being successful in winning over the "hearts and minds" in Afghanistan.

Yes, we were losing the odd soldier, but now the target is the "great satan"

and now there is no strategy and a change in the rules of engagement.

Get out now, there is no longer support for the mission.

From what I'm hearing and reading, the US has lost the support of their allies.

Time to retreat and protect the homefront.
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Liveoak said:
Hasn't the Saudi government countered terrorism within it's own borders or am I mistaken? All Saudi's are for terrorism or is it just the radical Islamists? Saudi is slowly coming to terms with the problem.

Terrorism is a tool. They don't want it in their own country anymore so than the US. Best way is to, "take the fight to them"

In Iraq, it was a suitable "theatre"

Afghanistan is a quaqmire.

Draw them out to a more suitable enviornment, to fight them.

I hope no one takes this the wrong way, but Afghanistan was not going that bad, until after the emphasis was taken off Iraq.

Canada was being successful in winning over the "hearts and minds" in Afghanistan.

Yes, we were losing the odd soldier, but now the target is the "great satan"

and now there is no strategy and a change in the rules of engagement.

Get out now, there is no longer support for the mission.

From what I'm hearing and reading, the US has lost the support of their allies.

Time to retreat and protect the homefront.

surrender is NOT the answer... a stable safe Afghanistan able to police their own is..

your advocating the very policy that killed over 3000 innocent Americans..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Not so Steve.

I'm promoting expending efforts elsewhere.

This is the first time in how many years that Canada has not been acting in a "Peace keeper" role.

Except, that we were still acting in the same manner somewhat.

When the US moved their emphasis to Afghanistan, the image ws once again "war"

I think that revitalized the Taliban..

The enemy will always be present.

Intel on training camps, and taking them out will negate the threat to the homeland somewhat.

Good security at home will complete the strategy.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
What was it Condelezza Rice said today?

If we want to be attacked again, just forget Afghanistan.

I agree returning to the past failed policy in Afghanistan would be saying not only that we didn't learn anything.. but we forgot history and it's implications..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I'm not promoting forgetting Afghanistan.

But it might be time for a "partial" retreat.

I hope BC finds this thread.

He'll know what I'm trying to say, and can probably explain it in a more understandable way.

The perception of US troops compared to Canadian is different and it's hard to explain, in a diplomatically correct manner.
 

Liveoak

Well-known member
Steve's right Hypo but we also have to do what you suggest and secure our own borders. Surrender is not the answer. The answer is in making a certain area of NW Pakistan glow in the dark. That geographical zone where the rats are breeding and crossing over into Afghanistan. SUpport for the effort will return if our politcians will allow our military to turn up the heat. Obama was thinking that direction but the pacifist liberals got his ear and now he's floundering on the subject.
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Not so Steve.

I'm promoting expending efforts elsewhere.

This is the first time in how many years that Canada has not been acting in a "Peace keeper" role.

Except, that we were still acting in the same manner somewhat.

When the US moved their emphasis to Afghanistan, the image ws once again "war"

I think that revitalized the Taliban..

The enemy will always be present.

Intel on training camps, and taking them out will negate the threat to the homeland somewhat.

Good security at home will complete the strategy.

wasn't that policy already tried? and failed.. ...

I think your being naive... if you think we can maintain any support if we decide to pull out, history has shown that victory such as the first gulf war. bolsters your defense and those willing to help in your agenda...

failure such as Vietnam was perceived,.. and even the our first involvement in Afghanistan was only erased by a swift victory in Iraq..and their oust from Kuwait...

failing and surrendering in Afghanistan coupled with an early withdrawn from Iraq will certainly be seen as a failure of strategy...

while some might root for an underdog getting his ass kicked as long as he is still scrapping away... few will follow a loser who ran away with his tail tucked in..
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
I'm not promoting forgetting Afghanistan.

But it might be time for a "partial" retreat.

I hope BC finds this thread.

He'll know what I'm trying to say, and can probably explain it in a more understandable way.

The perception of US troops compared to Canadian is different and it's hard to explain, in a diplomatically correct manner.

your arguments sound an awful lot like the same argument made before the surge strategy in Iraq..

the only way to peace is by leaving a strong stable safe country in our wake... it worked in Japan.. Germany, South Korea.

either that or turn it over to an oppressive government willing to kill millions of it's own people in an effort to force stability on them.. like Vietnam..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Steve said:
hypocritexposer said:
I'm not promoting forgetting Afghanistan.

But it might be time for a "partial" retreat.

I hope BC finds this thread.

He'll know what I'm trying to say, and can probably explain it in a more understandable way.

The perception of US troops compared to Canadian is different and it's hard to explain, in a diplomatically correct manner.

your arguments sound an awful lot like the same argument made before the surge strategy in Iraq..

the only way to peace is by leaving a strong stable safe country in our wake... it worked in Japan.. Germany, South Korea.

either that or turn it over to an oppressive government willing to kill millions of it's own people in an effort to force stability on them.. like Vietnam..

the Afghanistan theatre is different than Iraq

you can still leave a strong stable safe country by turning the people against the enemy, instead of marching into caves.

take the control and power away from the Taliban, how do you do that?

What's their main weapon?
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Steve said:
hypocritexposer said:
I'm not promoting forgetting Afghanistan.

But it might be time for a "partial" retreat.

I hope BC finds this thread.

He'll know what I'm trying to say, and can probably explain it in a more understandable way.

The perception of US troops compared to Canadian is different and it's hard to explain, in a diplomatically correct manner.

your arguments sound an awful lot like the same argument made before the surge strategy in Iraq..

the only way to peace is by leaving a strong stable safe country in our wake... it worked in Japan.. Germany, South Korea.

either that or turn it over to an oppressive government willing to kill millions of it's own people in an effort to force stability on them.. like Vietnam..

the Afghanistan theatre is different than Iraq

you can still leave a strong stable safe country by turning the people against the enemy, instead of marching into caves.

take the control and power away from the Taliban, how do you do that?

What's their main weapon?

the Afghan people! ..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
yep.

We go in with guns a blazing, chasing them into the hills, we will lose.

That strategy has already been tried in Afghanistan.

Drive the enemy out of the towns, don't kill civilians.

US troops are seen as being too "gung ho", (but I don't want to be disrespectful here.)

Protect the towns and citizens, give them freedom, and they will be on side.

Restrict them too much, they will be against us.

Restriction was what they didn't like about the Taliban, was it not?
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
yep.

We go in with guns a blazing, chasing them into the hills, we will lose.

That strategy has already been tried in Afghanistan.

Drive the enemy out of the towns, don't kill civilians.

US troops are seen as being too "gung ho", (but I don't want to be disrespectful here.)

Protect the towns and citizens, give them freedom, and they will be on side.

Restrict them too much, they will be against us.

Restriction was what they didn't like about the Taliban, was it not?

I believe that is the strategy Obama is abandoning now as it will require more troops...

The call for more troops is based on adopting a strategy that stresses protecting Afghan citizens over killing insurgents or controlling territory, he said.
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/21-Sep-2009/US-general-seeks-troops-in-Afghanistan-strategy-shift
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
It was the strategy previously, and it was not requiring more troops.

They don't need more troops to secure the towns.

They need more "grunts" to chase them into the hills.

More are dying, civilians and military, since they added more troops.

Is it the US uniform, or the strategy, I don't know.

BC, let us know your opinion.
 

Steve

Well-known member
The strategy may be working better then you give it credit.. if I am reading your responses correctly.. your looking at an increase in troops with out an increase in stability. because the troops went after the taliban.. yet advocating less troops and a stronger push at terrorists..


for that to produce results stability and security must also be increased.. and that will take more troops.. or it will collapse the minute you leave..

an interesting article.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-09-23-voa41.cfm
General David Petraeus says the only way to fight terrorism is to take the multi-dimensional approach embodied in the current strategy there.

President Obama has already increased the U.S. troop presence by more than 21,000 to about 68,000, and authorized more aggressive operations against the Taliban, which have resulted in a sharp increase in U.S. casualties.
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
It was the strategy previously, and it was not requiring more troops.

They don't need more troops to secure the towns.

They need more "grunts" to chase them into the hills.

More are dying, civilians and military, since they added more troops.

Is it the US uniform, or the strategy, I don't know.

BC, let us know your opinion.
they weren't able to secure the towns.. not enough troops..
 
Top