Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what? Why do you keep bringing this up here?.......
Just wanted to make sure that you were clear about the undeclared naval war of 1941. Ie, the US was fighting what might be considered part of WWII but war had not been declared yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Guard
LOL. You keep talking about it.
To clarify others posts, tie up in loose ends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoot N Annie
Several folks on this thread defending/excusing the terrorist. Talking about WW2 U.S. actions, etc. And of course a few have mentioned Tim McVeigh, as though his senseless actions excuse the senseless actions in Paris.
War is not about playing nice. And it is not about who's right. It is about who has the might, and the will, to defeat the enemy. We have the might but not the will. The terrorists have the will but not the might. Stalemate.
No, not defending. Pointing out that if one is going to describe their enemy in such a way, be sure to pick a definition that can't be applied to them.
Of course, with the above, it is probably safe to say that "he" is a fighter that threatens my existence and "I" need to kill him. That is pretty safe and pretty direct.
Saying, however, that "he" is a coward for blowing himself up to escape capture and then we might have a problem for there are probably a lot of people around the world that we would not want our troops to fall into their hands. Would we fault them if they decided to kill themselves instead?
Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 11-14-2015 at 07:26 AM..
Just wanted to make sure that you were clear about the undeclared naval war of 1941. Ie, the US was fighting what might be considered part of WWII but war had not been declared yet.
Fighting? I think you are being a little more than disingenuous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah
To clarify others posts, tie up in loose ends.
OH Sorry, I forget that only you get to control the dialogue.
Just wanted to make sure that you were clear about the undeclared naval war of 1941. Ie, the US was fighting what might be considered part of WWII but war had not been declared yet.
To clarify others posts, tie up in loose ends.
Which has nothing to do with these Paris attacks! I don't care if the US Navy checked the Nazis in international waters. F*ck the Nazis! They were responsible for starting a war that killed tens of millions of people. These ISIS terrorists would love to have the same kind of power of the Nazis, but they really are just a JV team compared to Nazis.
Just wanted to make sure that you were clear about the undeclared naval war of 1941. Ie, the US was fighting what might be considered part of WWII but war had not been declared yet.
To clarify others posts, tie up in loose ends.
No, not defending. Pointing out that if one is going to describe their enemy in such a way, be sure to pick a definition that can't be applied to them.
Of course, with the above, it is probably safe to say that "he" is a fighter that threatens my existence and "I" need to kill him. That is pretty safe and pretty direct.
Saying, however, that "he" is a coward for blowing himself up to escape capture and then we might have a problem for there are probably a lot of people around the world that we would not want our troops to fall into their hands. Would we fault them if they decided to kill themselves instead?
I'd say they are far from "cowards" and they didn't "blow themselves up to avoid capture". They blew themselves up to further their mission of killing people when shooting was no longer possible. As for the "coward" thing, it takes GUTS or serious beliefs to do something that you know will terminate your existence as soon as you do it.
Don't anyone for a minute think that these people are "cowards". They are pretty much the only fighters nowadays that will gladly die for their warped beliefs. Nothing "cowardly" in that, warped yes but not "cowardly".
I'd say they are far from "cowards" and they didn't "blow themselves up to avoid capture". They blew themselves up to further their mission of killing people when shooting was no longer possible. As for the "coward" thing, it takes GUTS or serious beliefs to do something that you know will terminate your existence as soon as you do it.
Don't anyone for a minute think that these people are "cowards". They are pretty much the only fighters nowadays that will gladly die for their warped beliefs. Nothing "cowardly" in that, warped yes but not "cowardly".
It's not too early, it's too late. They may have closed the borders, but how many are still inside? Over 100 people are dead because they didn't predict this. Rob Lowe is absolutely correct to call them on it.
I believe closing the borders was in order to prevent any terrorists involved from leaving the country, not to prevent people from coming in.
Just wanted to make sure that you were clear about the undeclared naval war of 1941. Ie, the US was fighting what might be considered part of WWII but war had not been declared yet.
To clarify others posts, tie up in loose ends.
No, not defending. Pointing out that if one is going to describe their enemy in such a way, be sure to pick a definition that can't be applied to them.
Of course, with the above, it is probably safe to say that "he" is a fighter that threatens my existence and "I" need to kill him. That is pretty safe and pretty direct.
Saying, however, that "he" is a coward for blowing himself up to escape capture and then we might have a problem for there are probably a lot of people around the world that we would not want our troops to fall into their hands. Would we fault them if they decided to kill themselves instead?
They kill themselves in these attacks because they have been convinced that they will be rewarded in heaven for jihad. Notice that the real leaders of Al Qaeda and ISIS never seem to commit suicide. These people are in a death cult, convinced they will be rewarded by Allah by turning themselves into human bombs.
I believe closing the borders was in order to prevent any terrorists involved from leaving the country, not to prevent people from coming in.
Of course that is why they did it. In the Charlie attacks, a wife/girlfriend of the terrorist who held hostages in the grocery store escaped the country before they could nab her.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nothing "cowardly" in that, warped yes but not "cowardly".
