Excellent quote from Congressman Jim Moran

@ncscswitch:

Um, I am going to depart from my own ideology here just to play Devil’s Advocate for a moment (or maybe I am simply taking another step in a direction I am already heading, who knows…)

A better example for what we face in the Middle East is not from the great Nation-State wars of the early 20th Century.  Let’s use a much more recent example of a Super Power and a pissant muslim nation.  Of course I mean USSR vs Afghanistan.

The Soviet Union marched into Afghanistan, took over, installed a puppet government and “won” the war quickly.

Then the insurgents started to act.  Helicopters shot down, convoys attacked, etc.

After several years of sustained losses, the Soviet Union pulled out.

Yes the radical insurgents took over Afghanistan.

But did the Afghan Rebels follow the Soviets back to Moscow?  Was the hated Red Army under attack in their barracks after they left?  Did any car bombs or suicide bombers threaten the Kremlin or Vladivostok or Stalingrad?

No.  The Soviets left, and the Muslims in Afghanistan said “We beat a Super Power” and went about their business INSIDE Afghanistan.

Is there, perhaps, the potential that Iraq might work the same way?  We leave, they do what they want to within Iraq, and forget all about the hated Americans, just like the Afghani’s forgot all about the hated Russians?

Who knows, maybe, like in Afghanistan, the winning Insurgents will get pissed off at France, Germany or Russia for not helping them ENOUGH and attack THEM 20 years from now by flying planes into one of their buildings; just like happened to the US after we didn’t help Afghanistan “enough” after the Soviet invasion…

You bring up one interesting point.  Why are we not getting hit as hard in Afghan?  I would think that those people would have the bigger beef with us rather than the Iraqis.  First to answer to your question… we supplied the Taliban, that is why they “won” the war.  See how quickly it fell w/o a superpower backing it.

The Taliban was not too popular in Afghan. and we were the ones who made sure they were supplied.  The same equipment that defeated the Soviets was probably used on the Northern Alliance and anyone else who got in their way.  Now we have “given them freedom” from the government we all but installed.

Well, whatever the reason that things are not going as bad in Afghan… keep up the good work.

Interesting how people are accusing me of hate speech against terrorists.  :lol: :lol: :lol: Id love to hear what you would say if your friends where being blown up! terrorists are fair game, if you dont hate them, then you have serious problems.

And Zooey, the reason Afgan was a walk in the park was because we properly utilized the element of surprise. Iraq had months of warning, who knows how many terrorists where preparing for a fight in the time space.

And one more thing, unless the crusades only happened a hundred years ago, then the battle between Islam and the west has been going on for quite a long time.

@M36:

Interesting how people are accusing me of hate speech against terrorists.  :lol: :lol: :lol: Id love to hear what you would say if your friends where being blown up! terrorists are fare game, if you dont hate them, then you have problems.

And Zooey, the reason Afgan was a walk in the park was because we properly utilized the element of surprise. Iraq had months of warning, who knows how many terrorists where preparing for a fight in the time space.

Marine, please define “Terrorist”.

Also, you don;t think that Afghanistan knew we were coming?  The 82nd is good, but not good enough to secure a whole freakin country in a matter of days or even weeks.

And um… if we were so successful in Afghanistan, where is Bin Laden?  Why do we hear about firefights along the Afghan/Pakistan border?  What happened to all those Al Queda forces that we caught flat footed in Afghanistan?  Did they escape the battle of the caves?  Did they slip across an unsecured border into Iran?  Maybe Uzbekistan?  Maybe they are in Pakistan?  Or perhaps they are just biding their time in Afghanistan…

Good… Yanny has read this thread. Nothing has happened.

• Kill the fuckers!

• I wonder whether i should change my opinion on the mods here on the board and what i wish them for the future.

…  Of course the two last lines have nothing to do with each other. I am only disappointed that a “personal insult” has more weight than hate-speech and calling for murder. Especially as it was not qualified to “terrorists” but aimed at all muslims:
This board and it moderators must be supporting religious discrimiation or step in.

I withdraw my former apology, given in
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=5553.0

Falk’s freedom of speech

“You can say anything you want as long as you agree with me.”

To not agree with falk, means it is “hate speech”.

Yanny, the Japs were religious loons too.  Their religion of choice was shinto.  There is more similiar with the jap society and extremist muslims than there is difference.  As far as the rebels who fought after the war, and the japs isolated on the islands…  It took 50 years for the last jap to surrender.  Are you suggesting that the majority of Iraqi’s, or muslims for that matter are actively fighting our forces?  Not even close, and you know it.  They estimate the insurgency at being at most 20k people.  So that is less the 1 percent of the population of Iraq.  The Jefferson Davis thing, we captured SH.  SH’s loyalist are still fighting us, sound familiar?  How long did it take for the last state in the south to rejoin (I am not entirely sure on this one, other than it was quite a long time) the union?

Your making things cut and dry, that are not cut and dry.  IL posted about the werewolves who fought for 2 years after the Nazis surrnedered, how was that not an “insurgency” against an occupying force.  You want to romanticize the muslim crazies by making them out to be something unique, and they are not.

While the point may be neither here nor there, I’d attribute the fanatical fighting spirit in the Japanese to cultural ideals, rather than religious ones.  Particularly the still resounding impact of Bushido…

@Yanny:

F_alk, I am tolerating this thread because, although I disagree with some of the comments, they are (sadly) becoming legit (although misguided) opinions to be used in a debate.

You know i have tended to agree with you Yanny - at least on this thread.
still, F_alk has a (IMO not well made) point.

stuff like

These creeps have been indoctrinated with hatred of the west for hundreds of years,

and

Islam does not understand kindness, they only understand force. Kill all the fuckers, and the problem is solved.

registers as hate speech on just about any radar in a civilized society.

Zooey, I have already stated the biggest difference between beating Japan and beating Al-Quaeda. Japan had a centralized command and control structure. They were able to do something called surrender. Even if we captured Osama Bin Ladin and he signed some sort of “surrender papers”, Al-Quaeda would continue on normal operations. Japan agreed to be subjugated, adopt a constitution, and all the other implications which came with it. That is not possible here.

To bring up a seperate point from the command and control structure, I think it is important to realize the immense respect the emperor of Japan had at the time with the general population of Japan (although the military leaders were capable of replacing emperors).  The emperor was worshiped.  When he told the citizens of Japan to stop fighting, they did so, except for some isolated soldiers on remote islands who did not hear the word.  Had he told them to continue fighting, they no doubt would have fought to the last man, woman and child.

While OBL has a great deal of respect among certain elements in the Middle East, I don’t think they respect him this much.  In the event we captured or killed OBL, or even if OBL renounced his actions and voluntarily surrendered, I do think AQ would continue.  I really don’t see an overall surrender happening with every terrorist group out there.

@Yanny:

…although I disagree with some of the comments, they are (sadly) becoming legit (although misguided) opinions to be used in a debate.

Calling for the death of a group of people is “becoming a a legit opinion”?
What if i called for the dath of all moderarors of this board: Kill the fuckers ?
(Oh, maybe you would see that as a personal insult - yet it is ok to insult one group of people (all muslims), but not another group of people (all moderators)? )

You have seen (and locked) what happened once i called the death of some(!, and i qualified which)  USans a “beneficial” thing in response to several other calls for death?
We had the discussion, and even Janus had agreed that calling or inciting a crime is not covered by the freedom of speech.

Now, explain to me how and why “Kill the fuckers” would have any protection and is NOT calling for a crime?

@Yanny:

I hate to tell you F_alk, but that is exactly the viewpoint of a lot of people in the United States. It’s sad and I truely believe that anyone who believes that way is ignorant and stupid, but it is not uncommon. …

So, just because many people in Germany during the 3rd Reich thought they were a superior race this was a “legit opinion” ?
Then you must allow that “opinion” as an explanation/excuse for the deeds (atrocities?) that followed that “opinion”.
This was not the case at the Nuremberg Trials.

Again you seem to value one “human right” (of free speech) more than a human life. IMO the right to live is overruling all other rights. Deny someone that right … and many of your states would deny you the right as well.

We had the discussion, and even Janus had agreed that calling or inciting a crime is not covered by the freedom of speech.

dont drag me into this

@Yanny:

So, just because many people in Germany during the 3rd Reich thought they were a superior race this was a “legit opinion” ?
Then you must allow that “opinion” as an explanation/excuse for the deeds (atrocities?) that followed that “opinion”.
This was not the case at the Nuremberg Trials.

Again you seem to value one “human right” (of free speech) more than a human life. IMO the right to live is overruling all other rights. Deny someone that right … and many of your states would deny you the right as well.

If we were killing people by debating, you would be right. But this is still a debate, meaning that there are opposing sides. If it were the year 1942 and we were debating Germany’s actions, then obviously we could not do so while restricting those from voicing their opinion in favor of Germany.

If you (like I) have a problem with their opinion, then meet them on their own grounds and refute their words with civil discourse.

I don’t know Yanny, this is different than mere “difference of opinion”.  A previous g/f (and still close friend) of mine is Islamic, and the kind of “discourse” i read made me want to go kick the $41t out of him.  If instead of referring to the arabic/middle eastern people, the focus was on blacks or aboriginals, and the call was made to wipe these people out, then this thread would be locked down pretty quickly.

the difference is, while still racist, marines comments are prompted by the (bigotted) and ignorant position that all muslims (and probably all arabs) are terrorists. doesnt make the comments any more acceptable, but i think its prompted more by ignorance than by racism. if we did like you said, and he called for the extermination of all the blacks, that would be pure racism. w/e. thats the way i see it. hes still ignorant, and the comments are still inflammatory.

Janus, but it seems like you were not that inflamed by his comments.

Just imagine i would replace the set “muslims” and the subset “terrorists” by “USamericans” and the subset “KKK”… then the thread would have looked like this:

• some comments on the KKK
  with the reply:
• USamericans? Kill the fuckers!

Maybe you now understand why i wrote the oterh lines in the other thread: These lines inflamed you quite a lot.
I ask myself: Is that chauvinism or nationalism on your part, that you get excited when someone is critical against your nation, while your countrymen can “cry havok” and your reaction at a maximum is a desinterested shrug? I bet you just want to honour your board-name.

@Yanny:

…
If you (like I) have a problem with their opinion, then meet them on their own grounds and refute their words with civil discourse.

They have left the grounds of civil discourse long ago. How can i then be civil and meet them on their own grounds?
I decide to meet them on their own grounds: They are not tolerating others, i do not tolerate that kind of behavior. To “tolerate” intolerance is actually being indifferent. And we had the poem of the german pastor not long ago about where indifference can lead you.

@Yanny:

F_alk, you tossing up a straw man here. It’s not as if they are saying “Yeah, taxes really are too high. Oh, and by the way, kill all the Muslims”.

I don’t think that i created a strawman. My example was meant as a “psosible other thread that you now have to allow as well as you created a precedent here”.

You’ve been around long enough F_alk to know what I feel about this issue. But my view does not matter in this case. Their language is harsh, and I would ask for marine and others to tune down the verbiage, but their viewpoint in the context of the terrorism issue is valid for discussion. People who argue in favor of intelligent design are doing a similar thing. They are ignorant and stupid, but their viewpoint is neccessary to the debate on this message board.

@ “I would ask … to tune down the verbiage.”
Why don’t you?
What is hindering you to enforce the rules that you already have?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=1393.0
Some people here regularly break rule (2),
and as racists jokes are only allowed in Mod Forum, there is a whole thread that should be deleted, and the occasional “french joke” should be instantly moved as well.
What hinders you to edit rule (2) so that it includes no discrimination of religion? Mind you, you are “god” (rule 6).

Even if their viewpoint is “all terrorists should be sentenced to death” then that is of a different quality than “kill the (muslim) fuckers”.
It would be non-discriminating and it would adhere to basic rules of a nation of law. If you think that especially the second is somehow  not rulable/enforcable, then i truely do not undestand your reasoning.

@ Intelligent  Design: I think i do understand what you mean … but find it funny that you complain about my “creation of a strawman” in the first line of your post while you take the last two to do the same (in creating or not creating a strawman, if you don’t think that i created one).