Tuesday's Elections Deal Terrorists A Deadly Blow!

As much vicarious joy as I get from seeing this sort of quip turned against someone other than the Left for a change, Otto doesn't have to leave if he doesn't like it here. Unlike so many of the Neo-Con right, I and others on the left value political discourse and the open debate of ideas.

Tell us what you think Otto -- it's your right as an American. Just try to remember what it's like to be in the minority next time the political pendulum swings your way.

If you don't like the way things are run in this country, then you should just leave.

People have been complaining about George Bush for 6 years now, sometimes legitimately and sometime not, yet they have not left the country. Alec Baldwin threatened to and unfortunately he never made good on his promise. Too busy fighting with Kim Basinger I guess. My point is most rational people never wanted the detractors to move out of the country.

If you don't like the way things are run in this country, then you should just leave. How you like them apples, son.

as wrongheaded as oTTo is, that comment is just plain mudheaded.

I think it was satire firsty... at least I hope it was.

My tongue was firmly implanted in cheek. Am I not allowed to turn a quip back at the expense of someone who is firmly conservative.

What is sad is that it has to be explained. I respect otto for his views and writing, especially his hit-piece on killfile awhile back which made me laugh.

The future isn't going to be pretty, because the Dems will have to deal with the mess left behind by the retreating Republicans, cut & run Rumsfeld, and the next 2 years of our President's pigheadedness.

In an ironic turnaround, Iraq brought regime change to the U.S.

-- Amy Poehler, on Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update."

I think the fact that (once again) your points are not being addressed is saying something about the points you often make.

Why address absurd points?

When facts are displayed to liberals, they have nothing to say. If a lib makes some claim,
we are supposed to believe it. If we do not believe it, we are dumb and not at their level of intelligence.

Great article Otto.

When facts are displayed to liberals, they have nothing to say.

Yes, when worthless "factoids" are presented to liberals, we would prefer not to lend them weight by making comments about them.

Every single quote oTTo took the time to wrangle up and present as some sort of "doom and gloom prophecy" in order to "prove" all the FUD he's tossed around for the last 3 or 4 months can be summed in one word: irrelevant.

THAT is why he can't find someone to discuss the point he wants to make.

The "point" appears to be that we should let the opinions of terrorists (crazy, insane and full of hate) dictate the way we think. The fact that "terrorists" say something and that we should take what they say seriously is absurd. (One begins to wonder which side oTTO is on. He appears to side with the terrorists in their campaign to spread fear.)

"Oh no! Run for the hills! The terrorists opened their mouths and made predictable comments in response to a historic vote for change! We better listen to what they have to say because it spells doom for Democracy and life as we know it! Repent! Repent!"

Expecting us to buy into their commentary is just stating that we are stupid enough to eat up whatever we are handed.

The fact that OTTO buys into it just means that he's willing to let his life be dictated by the bull@!$%# that spews out of their mouths. (I wonder if OTTO knows that ingesting food through the ass means that you will @!$%# it out your mouth?)

The FACTS (thinking conservative -- take note) are that an insanely large amount of the American public has had their fill of FUD. They voted for change and the country is facing in one direction and OTTO is running in the other screaming about yesterday's failed talking points.

The election is over -- and he's still campaigning for the losing team.

Yep...the Democrats are terrorists.

Actually I just got back from a liberal commy meeting and we all decided that we're going to accept Islam...just to mess with the conservatives. I actually have volenteered to meet with OBL for tea and biscuts next friday just to see if we can get some Quran passages into our courts, to replace the Zionist "Ten commandments" . He's such a charmer (OBL)...he even got me to promise him to make my sister one of his wives. He's rich so I figured she'd be ok with it. She's a democrat...I mean terrorist...too.

Turns out all you had to do to find OBL was visit his myspace page....who'd of thunk it?

Sorry I know this seems kinda odd and frankly...retarded...but I just thought I'd go along with similar thoughts that were being expressed in this article and in the comments. :)

Praise be to Allah, the most merciful...or whatever.

I'm curious? Where are you meeting with Osama? Longitude and latitude and the UTC time of the meeting would be very cool to know.

Oh, and don't worry if you think you see any black-clad ninjas dropping out of Bill Clinton's helicopter during the meeting. They're just there to get their pictures taken with Zawahiri.

Actually I just got back from a liberal commy meeting and we all decided that we're going to accept Islam...just to mess with the conservatives. I actually have volenteered to meet with OBL for tea and biscuts next friday just to see if we can get some Quran passages into our courts, to replace the Zionist "Ten commandments" . He's such a charmer (OBL)...he even got me to promise him to make my sister one of his wives. He's rich so I figured she'd be ok with it. She's a democrat...I mean terrorist...too.

Funny thing is, I almost believe you.

Pangloss,

Sad thing is, I definitely believe you. Especially now that they'll have to get Pelosi approval before doing anything rash.

could it be a gathering of trolls?

naww.. say it aint so.

Thanks for the concise and precise summary. It is hard to wade through rambling whines to make heads or tails of it.

It is also very sad that the majority of America hates America.

To OTTO: I suggest renaming your column from the Otto Show to the Ostrich Show.

Otto,

Perhaps you should beef up your reading comprehension and analytical thinking ability.

If "they" are celebrating the defeat of the Republicans, that does not necessarily mean that they are celebrating the victory of the Democrats. Judgement is yet to be passed on the Democrats. In the next few months/years, if Democrats continue doing what Republicans did, they are not going to be celebrating the Democrats. If Democrats continue doing what Republicans did, you can bet all of your ostrich eggs that come 2010, they will be kicked out of the Congress by the people of America.

In other, simpler, words - it is not a black and white world. It is not, repeat not, true that if you are with them then you are against us. Stop hearing what leaders say and start listening and thinking for yourself.

As to my politics, I have been and always will be an independent who votes based on the record of the candidate and not his/her party.

Forget politics, perhaps its time to wake up and re-examine yourself.

The point is that we have two political parties, one that confronts terror and war and one that appeases and belittles and ignores it.

As a former Republicant* who now is affiliated with no party, let me re-frame that for you Otto: We have two parties, one that confronts reality and one that seeks to impose it's twisted view of it while belittling the "reality based community." The GOP of Reagan would not have gotten us into the Iraqi quagmire while there was unfinished business in Iraq, nor would the GOP of Bush the Elder have committed us to a project of nation-building in Iraq. Incidentally, I voted for both of those men, and even was a volunteer in Bush's first campaign. The Republicant Party has lost its way and has replaced foreign policy realists with fantasists.

The Democratic Party has its own fantasists, of course, but the narrow majority by which they cling to the Senate should hold those moonbats in check. Right now I am far more concerned about the moonbat in the Oval Office. And yes, I am located (barely) in the Northeast. We Northeastern moderates got a little tired of being called RINOs and having to kowtow to the Christian Taliban that has infected what was once the party of freedom and tolerance. You have your ideological purity now, but not a majority. The same will happen to the donkeys if they decide to govern from their "base" as well.

*As long as the Bush-led GOP refuses to have the decency to refer to the Democratic Party by its correct name, instead calling it the "Democrat" Party to try to link its members to vermin, I refuse to spell "republican" correctly. I like Republicant as it evokes the fact that they can't balance the budget or fight a war competently.

A small edit to my rant. I wrote "The GOP of Reagan would not have gotten us into the Iraqi quagmire while there was unfinished business in Iraq," when of course what I meant to write was "The GOP of Reagan would not have gotten us into the Iraqi quagmire while there was unfinished business in Afghansitan," Sorry for any confusion.

AA,

There was no unfinished business in Afghanistan by the middle of 2002. The unfinished business was in Iran and Pakistan, at the heads of twin supply trains of mujaheddin and weapons destined for Afghanistan. Chasing the unfinished business of the battle against Taliban and al Qaeda would have required the US to invade Pakistan, a pseudo-ally with nuclear weapons, and Iran, a country three times the size of Iraq with much more difficult terrain.

The invasion of Iraq was meant to take advantage of the wide-open terrain of Iraq and draw Al Qaeda into Iraq where they would 1) die, and 2) open the eyes of Arabs to how evil their actions are. Besides, Saddam had to go. WMDs was an excuse urged on the Bush administration by the Euros (French and German), who then wussed out of the invasion at the last minute.

The invasion of Iraq was meant to take advantage of the wide-open terrain of Iraq and draw Al Qaeda into Iraq where they would 1) die, and 2) open the eyes of Arabs to how evil their actions are.

and as one can see, that plan turned out quite well!

gogo dickless cheney

I suspect Pangloss is just a troll trying to play off his Voltaire-inspired handle. Dr. Pangloss always saw the best side of everything in Candide don't you know, which made him one of the funnier characters.

While I'm not a Democrat, and most of my candidates didn't win, I'm not sure I really care what Al Qaeda's opinion is of our election results.

I didn't vote based on what would piss off the terrorists. I voted based on who I thought would be the best leaders for our country.

Do you think the terrorist should be happy about who is in the majority?

I think the terrorists' feelings are really irrelevant.

I'm concerned about their behavior. I don't particularly care about their feelings.

If the terrorists had endorsed Bush because they'd like to see us remain stuck in Iraq, would you have voted Democrat?

Frankly, I don't think that endorsements by groups like NARAL, NAMBLA, or the KKK are relevant. To use your KKK example, if the KKK endorsed George Bush, what does it mean? Not much. It doesn't mean that George Bush endorsed THEM. Surely you're not suggesting that if the KKK endorsed George Bush that a vote for Bush is a vote for the KKK?

I don't vote in a vacuum. Neither am I swayed by every wandering breeze of opinion I hear. I vote based on the policies and platforms of the candidates. What other people, especially extremists, think is of little concern to me. They have an agenda that's very different than mine.

Otto, do you seriously believe that a majority of Americans support terror?

Hexodus,

Did you read the article? The article is all about the majority of Americans being against terror and concerned that the Democrats they elected might not be. Your question is rendered moot by the article itself. Subtract one letter grade from your grade and try the analysis again, this time reading the article first.

Pangloss. Let me break down a little bit for you.

Ottos argument is this:

Democratic candidates are friendly to terrorists.
Most Americans voted for Democratic candidates.
Therefore, most Americans voted for candidates who are friendly to terrorists.

Simple deductive reasoning. Give me my letter grade back and get the hell out of my classroom.

The answer to Republican losses is to fix their platform and bring their voters back to the party, not to whine about the other guys.

Otto-

sorry but i think you might be insane..

So the answer to Democrats alignment with terror is to ignore it and talk about Republicans instead. Got it.

anyone who makes a blanket statement as such should be examined at a hospital..

can you really believe that the democratic party is in collusion with "terrists"?

the evidence out there (however thin it may be) actually suggests that there is more of a republican connection (bushes and the saudis). i don't really buy into the conspiracy of it all but the connections are indeed real.

to keep the appeasers out of power.

are you sure you are not george w bush hiding out on the 'vine?

"That's wonderful, but my concern isn't about Republicans, it's about Democrats. In the issue of terrorists seeking alliances in American politics, I couldn't give a crap about the election problems of Republicans other than that they need to get their house in order to keep the appeasers out of power."

Well, then you'll be worried about it for a long time to come. If you want to get the "appeasers" out of power, you'd be better served by focusing on how to win the next election, rather than reliving the past.

A strong platform of ideas will win you back more voters than attacks and fearmongering.

You can either hate Democrats as the minority party, or as the majority party. Your current methods make the former much more likely than the latter.

We needed to get that cleared up too. Cant remember how many articles, and there were many, about how Bush would suspend all elections and become the King. How he was just going to take control, crush everyone who dissented.

It was actually a great, perceptive, and biting response that would lose its beauty if it were to come again. Let me break it down for you, Otto.

Here's what he meant: simple Christian fundamentalism dictates that there is only one God and everything else is false. You exhibit a similar line of thinking. You believe Bush is God and the Republicans can do no wrong. You were born to worship Bush and the Republicans. You believe that everyone else is just the Devil(s). Anyone that is against your God is the Devil.

So you are saying that Christians who vote Republican have become apostate pagans and now worship Republicans as gods and George W. Bush as the ruler of the gods? That is the most demented, stupid thing I have ever read.

I don't think that is what winsome cowboy meant.

I think what winsome cowboy meant was, "I hate Christianity and Christians. So there."

I don't think he meant that Bush was God. I think he was just saying that the mentality of the Bush administration is very much in line with the mentality of fundamentalist christians and so they rightly mesh well together.

Ah, I see, you haven't lost your habit of linking to your own articles. If I had a Japanese Yen each time you did that, I would be a US Dollar billionaire by now.

Otto, then things will get significantly worse in Iraq, terrorism will increase and Dems will be out in 2008 and the conflict will be resolved... I hope...

I bet you'd like a pony with that, too.

I wouldnt exactly call it a thumpin. They only have a slim majority. I am an independent, conservative on some items, liberal on others. I had a hard time voting on this one. I didnt like many of the democrats and their platform but I didnt want to vote for Republicans to let them continue what they were doing. I prefer to vote independent but not many of the independent candidates were any more worthy of the vote than the major party people.

Im giving the democrats a shot. Well see how they do. Personally Id like to see the American people have a little more input and a little less representation on big ticket items. Lets get a real vote and feeling of the country on how they feel about Iraq, immigration, and other big topics. And lets give a real spectrum of options, not just 2 or 3.

As an example take illegal immigration: According to many talking heads, the people are firmly against amnesty for illegal aliens. However, that looks like exactly what we are going to get since Bush and the dems are all for that. Thats taking your money to prop up and give criminals a reward for exactly the crime they committed. Thats like me robbing a bank, getting caught, and then they give me all the money in the vault but I gotta pay a small fine. I think its wrong and Im completely against it. They knew it was wrong and they took that risk knowingly.

"Thumpin" was Bush's description, not mine...

Did you ever stop to consider why they consider themselves disenfranchised? Like maybe the PATRIOT Act, and the "terra terra BOOOGAH BOOGAH" as our rights are methodically stripped away? A Libertarian is not going to support arbitrary detention and surveillance by definition. Most of the Libertarians I know consider Bush's policies to be far more of a threat to liberty than Clinton's, and no they didn't like Clinton's at all.

If you want those votes, your party is going to have accept limitations on the government, and probably strongly rethink the importance of gay marriage and the drug war to have much of a chance with them.

A recent Pew research analysis showed that about 15% of the electorate is roughly libertarian (i.e. socially liberal and economically conservative). Of those voters about 65% voted for Bush in 2000, but only 55% voted for Bush in 2004. Given that such voters have only gotten more infuriated with the big spending, civil liberty violating GOP expecting such voters to break for Burns more decisively than they did for Bush in 2000, especially when Tester was such a libertarian friendly candidate, is simply not credible.

BTW, the more that those voters stay home, the more extreme the skew for Burns must be. If, say 20% of those voters declined to vote (in the no-LP case), the remainder would have to break 72-28 for Burns. If a third of them decline to vote, the skew needs to be 77-23! Face it, Burns' loss has nothing to do with the presence of a Libertarian candidate and everything to do with Burns' stance on the issues.

Republicans need to earn their votes. Why should libertarians support a man like Burns? Because he voted for a tax cut three years ago? Well, he also voted for war three years ago and voted to suspend habeas corpus this year and voted for increased budgets every year. If Republicans are going to be just as worthless on economic issues as Democrats, and worse than Democrats on matters of personal liberty then candidates like Burns are going to lose.

www.theonion.com/content/node/38758

Why do you have to admit that?

Indeed, I fail to see how suspending Habeas corpus makes us any more safe. In fact, knowing that someone can declared a "terrorist" (a term that so vaguely defined in the law that it could apply to anyone, including American citizens) and then whisked off to a detention center, without any recourse to the courts makes me feel quite a bit less safe.

A "police state" is a state that is ruled by police.

If you want to feel safe, go find some place where you are in the majority (in every major category that matters) that is also a police state.

Liberty is not for the faint-hearted.

Read the Declaration of Independence, which is the basis of our American ideal of Liberty.

What order are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness in? Do you think the order has any import? Or was it random?

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Life has to be first. Nobody can be free if they are dead. It takes Life to enjoy Liberty. Security, or safety, is the method by which Life is protected. National defense, and the intelligence methods used to protect it, is central to security and a cornerstone of any sensible national government. Once Life is protected, then Liberty is ensured. And once Liberty is protected, by restrictions on the coercive powers of the government against its own citizens (not on foreign spies and terrorists), then the Pursuit of Happiness is protected. It has to be in that order because that's the only way it can actually work.

Liberty does not trump Life. Life is the trump, Liberty is the partner suit, and the Pursuit of Happiness is a lesser suit.

It takes Life to enjoy Liberty.

But not to deserve liberty. If I kill a man, did he not deserve life, liberty and the fruit of his labor? By killing him, I have not made him any less human, any less deserving of rights. Similarly, the fact that a terrorist might kill me, does not give my government a reason to infringe upon my liberties in order to protect my life. I deserve liberty regardless of any threats you may envision.

Furthermore, let me draw your attention to this part of your quote:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed . . .

In other words, government has power because the people grant it power. You may be willing to sacrifice essential liberties in order to feel safe from terrorism, but I and millions of other Americans do not. We do not consent. If you want the government to be able to jail people without notifying them of the charges against them and try them in military tribunals, you are entitled to your opinion but you are no friend of individual rights (life or otherwise).

Jefferson didn't write that document to justify the War on Terrorism. He wrote it to explain why he and his friends were busy shooting folks like you.

What order are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness in? Do you think the order has any import? Or was it random?

A reading of Jefferson's works will reveal a penchant for dramatic writing and a tendency to put things in order of descending length. Yes, really. Jefferson was an odd duck in that respect.

The man wrote with the intention of having his words read aloud and as a consequence tended to favor linguistic patterns that lent themselves to oration.

Am I a bit of a freak for knowing that? Yes -- but then again I have a history degree from the University he founded, so that might excuse my eccentricity.

Thanks for your quick reply.

I hadn't considered Iran an enemy of the US (and still don't). Though I do not see them as an ally either. They haven't specifically threatened the US have they?(of course, Iraq didn't and look what that got them) No, apparently I don't have the with us/against us mentality.

In standoffs like this, removing the threat of war from a terrorist dictatorship that seeks conflict and nuclear weapons almost gurantees war as inevitable.

I still don't see how them rejoicing about Rumsfeld has any real connection with terrorism. But at least I now understand that you are coming from a standpoint of complete fear and misunderstanding.

Shit, I was rejoicing about Rumsfeld. Am I an enemy?

Nuclear Iran[or nulclear everywhere] is an obvious inevitability. And no, I don't think that we even should be allies with them. The last thing we should do in that region is start picking sides... Oh wait. Too late for that, even you mentioned Israel as if we have any business with that particular 5000 year old epic.

space:

I hadn't considered Iran an enemy of the US (and still don't). Though I do not see them as an ally either. They haven't specifically threatened the US have they?

The seizure of the embassy in 1979 was an act of war by Iran. That Carter refused to treat it as such has been revealed in hindsight to be one of his many weaknesses. I say this as one who voted for him, and voted for a straight democrat ticket for years.

More recently, Iran has claimed to have 50,000 suicide bombers ready to spread terror in Europe and the United States.

More... in May 2006:

Iran's radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Sunday that the Islamic Republic could fast become an "unrivalled world power" by obtaining nuclear capabilities.

Does it sound like he's talking about nuclear energy or nuclear bombs? Do nuclear bombs threaten you?
More... in April 2006:

"Those who insulted the Iranian nation and set back Iran's movement for progress for several years must apologise", Ahmadinejad said at a rally in the eastern town of Rashtkhar. His comments were aired on state television and carried by the official news agency.

"You must bow down to the greatness of the Iranian nation", he said, addressing the West.

He added that if the United States continued to seek to use "bullying" tactics then "every nation of the world" would chant "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".

"If you do not return to monotheism and worshipping god and refuse to accept justice then you will burn in the fire of the nations' fury", Ahmadinejad said.

I don't know about you, but "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," accompanied by threats to wipe Israel off the map and to burn America "in the fire of the nations' fury", sound pretty threatening.

Couple that with the nuclear weapons. Feeling threatened yet?

Hezbollah is a subsidiary of the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps), and has recently threatened to send suicide bombers against America.

The threat against U.S. interests came as the FBI revealed it is searching for Hezbollah terrorist agents operating on American soil. Iranian Hezbollah's spokesman, Mojtaba Bigdeli, boasted that the group has trained 2,000 volunteers who are ready to take aim at the United States.

"They have been trained and they can become fully armed. We are ready to dispatch them to every corner of the world to jeopardize Israel and America's interests," Bigdeli said.

That sounds pretty threatening. And Hizbollah has already attacked America, many times.

The self-proclaimed "party of God" fired the first shot in radical Islam's war against America. Hezbollah notoriously introduced suicide bombings into the terrorist arsenal. In 1983 Hezbollah murdered 241 American peacekeepers in Beirut with a suicide truck bombing. They also bombed the American Embassy in Beirut.

In June 1985 Hezbollah tortured and beheaded the CIA station chief in Beirut, William Buckley. The same month they hijacked TWA Flight 847 from Athens to Rome and murdered Navy diver Robert Stethem. America's failure to punish Hezbollah for these crimes was the first signal to Islamists that America can be cowed. And to this day Hezbollah uses Lebanon as a base to help terrorist groups, and smuggle weapons, across the globe -- with the approval of Iran and Syria.

No empty threats here.

There has to be a time when we all wake up.

After reading your comment as well as Netanyahu: It's 1938, and Iran is Germany I have to agree with you. I s'pose I've been playing devil's advocate becuase I'm afraid that any precautionary measures the US comes up with will spark the very war it is afraid of. Pretty shitty situation..

That's very long and contains lots of really good content. You should make it an article.

Right on MartinEZ. Allow me to expand on that notion. If Al Qaeda claims this election as a victory, allowing them to save a little face and tone down their hostility toward the west, maybe even start to understand how a democracy in action serves the interests of the people, is that such a bad thing? Less murder and more dialog sounds like a good deal to me.

What America did last week was to act like a parent taking away the toys of a spoiled child who refuses to play nice with the other kids in the neighborhood. That's right, the Cons are in a time out. Maybe now they will think about what they did wrong and learn to play nice.

Have fun playing with terrorists...

So much for thinking, eh conservative...

i always did think that the that name was somewhat oxymoronic.

You have to define what 'weak on terror' is first before the other side does. Otherwise they will paint the picture for you. Fact is based on axiomatic thinking, don't let the "them" define the initial axiom.

Yes, Democrats are weaker on Terror...they don't think we should use it against our own people, go figure. Republicans are more willing to use the same tactics as the terrorists. Such as torture and fear mongering among their base supporters.

Get them all riled up like it's the end of days and you can lead them anywhere. Who am I describing? Republicans or Islamic Terrorists? Answer: Both.

Luckily for everyone in the world, most Americans realized what the Republicans were doing and decided that they wanted freedom more than security. Good for us! Let's just hope the moderates in Islam will learn the same lesson.

Good for us! Let's just hope the moderates in Islam will learn the same lesson.

...and if they don't?

See, I'm not one to aire on the side of purely hopeful. We can hope and dream all day and night, but the problem with making an agreement is that it require the full co-operation of both parties. While we have somehow chosen freedom, we still only hope that the Islamic moderates will also choose to promote positive change in their culture as well. If this doesn't happen - then what? what is this great back up plan that we're supposed to have? We do have one, right?

You need to ask yourself one question... Are the "deaths of moderates" worth the extermination of the extremists? If so, then we can do whatever we want... If not, we are going to have a hard time fighting a war against extremism when the moderates and extremists live door to door.

Every time you kill one moderate accidentally in the attempt to kill the extremists, you just "create" another extremist. If you believe that people will forgive and forget based on the notion that we are trying to "protect ourselves" and accidentally killed your father, mother, brother, or sister then you are being dishonest to yourself. I personal would not stand for that accident. I would stand up and fight the people that were responsible for the death of a loved one.

I think you meant to ask:

Are the deaths of extremists worth killing some of the moderates they live among?

I'd say yes, if the extremists are a serious threat. I believe these ones are.

Then you'd add a caveat:

Every time you kill one moderate accidentally in the attempt to kill the extremists, you just "create" another extremist.

If every time we kill an extremist and a moderate then we create a replacement extremist out of a different so-called moderate, then what we are doing is reducing the supply of future extremists. What's wrong with that?

You know how we'll know we are winning? When the moderates kick the extremists out or kill them so they don't get caught in the crossfire. It has been happening in Iraq for a long time.

If every time we kill an extremist and a moderate then we create a replacement extremist out of a different so-called moderate, then what we are doing is reducing the supply of future extremists. What's wrong with that?

That is shady logic, and is almost a crime against humanity...

Basically you are saying, once we kill all these "potential" enemies, we won't have to fight them...

Genocide would work as well, and would take less time.

Genocide would work as well, and would take less time.

Paint it what you want, but genocide is killing people based on race or religion - what Pangloss is talking about (and I agree with him), is taking preventative measures by killing other killers. It seems that a lot of people have lost sight of the purpose in waging war - to win. It isn't to coddle and root around to figure out who is what and how or why. War is not concerned with these things and if I recall... we gave several warnings prior to invading.

If killing peole who are potential enemies will save potential lives, I think that trade off is more than fair. After all lost lives hurt more than bent principles and in war you've got to make the best choice with what little time you've got. Besides, can you tell who is and is not an enemy when you walk around in an area that the people killing you look exactly like the ones you're trying to protect? What is the insurgency uniform by the way?

A rose by any other name....

If you "take preventive measure by killing other killers" and kill enough other killers of a specific religion it's still genocide. Maybe you didn't start out that way, but at the end of the day we should call a spade a spade.

What is the insurgency uniform by the way?

Some might say Islam...

@ Killfile

yes, spade a spade - but what you're saying is that once we reach a certain number of people killed who also belong to a certain religion then we should back off because suddenly it is labeled genocide. The people dying happen to be Muslim and / or Islamic, though our goal is not to kill people of those religions. It is a by-product... nothing more. If we started a war to kill Muslims, we'd have started internally and worked out and it would be known that we're trying to kill Muslim simply because they are Muslim...

@ MartinEZ

Ok... I meant clothing, something that sets them apart. The second largest religion inthe world isnt a religion since were not invading other countries killing other followers of Islam. Unless something new broke out, I dont think we've invaded France or Turkey... but I've been accused of being out of touch with reality before...