FDR still wondering if we need to defeat Hitler, or only Tojo

I'd like to separate them with a suppository bomb.

I can't separate 'em.... No way.

Can't separate The Taliban, al Qaeda and Obama.

Nope. Can't do it.

Cheers !

Kenny Solomon
Senior Expediter
The 72 Virgins Club Travel Agency

Fiddling while Rome burns...............

l just heard that some of the military realize they are missing the boat when they cannot go into mosque to find islamists and their weapons, State Dept. do not want them to upset the locals. well it a @%@%@% war, and going into mosques and taking out islamists and their weapons should #1 priority to winning it! how many Christian churchs were spared during WW2? by the allies or Germans? we do not need to handicap our military, when the enemy uses civilians, mosques to hide in it needs to be taken care of.

Heads UP:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254861886339&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Oct 7, 2009 4:14 | Updated Oct 7, 2009 4:44
'Galloway raised funds for Hamas in US'
By E.B. SOLOMONT, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
NEW YORK

The University of California, Irvine, has launched an internal probe and contacted law enforcement authorities over a student-organized event that may have raised money for Hamas.

The investigation is in response to allegations made by the Zionist Organization of America, which also alerted local law enforcement officials last week about the May event.

Organized by the Muslim Student Union at UCI, the event featured British politician George Galloway, who reportedly solicited funds for "Viva Palestina," his organization that brings aid to Gaza.

ZOA officials said evidence shows Viva Palestina monies may have ended up in Hamas hands. ZOA officials said Galloway visited Gaza in March, when he donated 100 vehicles and some $1.4 million.

"We are giving them to the elected government of Palestine," Galloway reportedly said at the time.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

FDR to extend hand in friendship to world's Nazis in speech from Hitler's bunker this June 4th, 1943

The following weekend, he'll be in Japan attempting to repair relations with the island nation through a talk delivered from Emperor Hirohito's palace.

This comes on the heels of the President's comments made outside Auschwitz that Nazism deserves "respect." Mr. Roosevelt also suggested that the nations of Europe and Asia should advance the Peace Process by making sacrifices, including "Land for Peace."

"We must dialogue with the moderate elements of the Waffen-SS, kamikaze, and banzai units," he declared.

The White House has announced details of Mr. Roosevelt's charm offensive. He plans to bow deeply to both Hitler and Hirohito as a sign of mutual respect, apologize for Pearl Harbor, Midway, and the Holocaust, and reassure both empires of his continued commitment to bankrupting and disarming America in the name of "Main Street."

As a sign of the United States' good will, the President will release members of the German and Japanese militaries captured in combat into American society at taxpayers' expense.

Additionally, American successes in Doolittle's Raid, the Battle of the Coral Sea, and Midway have now been redesignated "Embarrassing Failures of Diplomacy;" the methods used to decipher Japanese communications leading to the American "victory" at Midway have been published in the New York Times, and the Cryptanalytic Unit responsible for the intelligence that gave America the advantage there has been accused of lying by one of Mr Roosevelt's closest allies in Congress.

Plans for actions at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, and Normandy have all been postponed and await Nazi and Japanese approval.

President Roosevelt also unveiled Executive Order #12071941 establishing "Overseas Contingency Operations Relocation Camps." Americans opposing the President's policies will be designated "extremists" and evaluated for the confiscation of their First through Tenth Amendment Rights.

The Order also gives the president the authority to monitor and suspend all radio, telegraph, and pen-and-paper communications.

Allied leaders could not be reached for comment.

"that discussion is ongoing about whether you can actually separate the two--al Qaeda and the Taliban."

The discussion should be about whether or not those who belong to the most publicized of Muslim terrorist groups, Al-Qaeda, can "actually be separated" (the Obama formulation) from members of all the other of Muslm terrorist groups (Lashkar Jihad, Ansar al-Islam, Sipah-e-Sahaba, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and a hundred or a thousand others).

The discussion should also be about whether those who participate directly and immediately in violent Jihad can "actually be separated" from those who indirectly participate, through money and diplomatic efforts, and apologetics, and propaganda, and "moral" support, and efforts to confuse Infidels about the nature of Islamic texts and tenets and attitudes and atmospherics, those who directly participate in violent Jihad.

And the discussion should include the question of whether Muslims who take their Islam to heart and attempt to fulfill the duty to participate in Jihad (the struggle to remove, everywhere in the world, all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam) can indeed "actually be separated" from those who participate directly or indirectly in violent Jihad.

Finally, these apparently ongoing thoughtful discussions should include the question of whether anyone who calls himself a Muslim, even if he appears to be, outwardly, a "moderate" (and that term must be held up for close inspection and analysis to see if it means anything useful for Infidels in their own attempts at self-defense and self-preservation), can be trusted to be forever a "moderate" and what are the signs that would indicate such trust would be warranted, given the many examples where such trust was given, and turned out to be completely unwarranted.

There -- that should make the ongoing discussions just a bit more useful and sensible. Otherwise, if it really were limited to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the exercise would be, not quite completely, but very nearly so, idiotic.

Is BO really that stupid?? Taliban are just a part of what constitutes the ideology of Islam.

Islam in its entirety is the problem, not just little sections of it. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are just the violent muscle of Islam.

This is a slow suicide caused by ignorance, stupidity, and denial, and if BO isn't as stupid as he appears to be, then it is the murder of my American culture and values.

I am Pagan, nevertheless a scripture comes to mind.

Ephesians 6:10-18

In particularly 6:12 "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities, against the rulers of the darkness of this age,against spiritual hosts of wickedness in high places."

Unless we collectively in the Free World name our enemy, as we have been named we are doomed.

Islam must be fought on all fronts, not just with soldiers, for we will simply blood sacrifice our children fighting the bloodthirsty demon the Allah of Mohamed.

There must be a more effective way to battle the Ideology of Islam.

There is no more effective way to battle the totalitarian political ideology of Islam than by speaking the truth.

But the truth must be told and re-told until every non-Muslim understands that we have an enemy at the gates that is more powerful, more pervasive and more threatening to our civilisation than anything we have ever known before.

There was a highly intelligent reporter who has been embedded in Afghanistan named Lara Logan that was on Charlie Rose last night and she said we should not separate the two. She even said we must go into Pakistan whether they like it or not and take out the CORE ELEMENTS. She also said we should give the tribes who turn to the taliban for whatever reason (say a financial reason) the ultimatum either you accept our money or you can die along with the rest of the Taliban. She then stated the so-called indirect killing of innocent civilians doesn't matter because the Taliban will kill innocent civilians and then propagandize by blaming it on us anyway. Ie. We have to worry more about winning the infowar rather than avoiding indirect civilian deaths via drones. She even made it clear to that no nothing Charlie Rose that America is indeed in a war and that this war is indeed Global. She peripherally mentioned Africa and other countries we are fighting Islamist in.

Lara Logan, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent for CBS News
http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/6433

She seems to actually want to win this war instead of win hrts and minds. Which she claims is not realistic.

Maybe Obama has a point. What can be gained from a war in Afghanistan? Keeping a few dominoes that are determined to fall from falling? Maintaining peace in a part of the world that loves and lives for war? Propping up the blue unicorn of "moderate Islam"? The Islamic world is determined to ferment, and there's nothing that anyone can do to stop it.

Further, an America that elected a man who sat under Rev. "GD America" Wright for 20 years, acted as a disciple of Saul Alinsky, and hired creeps like Mark Lloyd and Van Jones clearly has neither the guts, moral fiber, nor intelligence to win any conflict.

So now were going to split Hairs hoping to get rid of the Gray??? God help us all.

NObama is a BETA male:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/did_we_elect_a_beta_male_as_pr_1.html

@Kepha

Robert Spencer does not believe ever muslim is evil therefore nor should you.

If we do not stop Al-qaeda and the Taliban they will nation build again via Sharia Law in Afghanistan, from there they will attack Pakistan were they already have a foot hold in. Then they will defeat the corrupt Pakistan gov't, aquire their nukes, and then develope a Mujahideen Nuclear Plot For America. Point being this anit vietnam, unlike the viet-con who were fighting a civil-war to unite their country these men in the black Pajamas are coming back to America
for 9/11 redux. Regardless, If you trust the muslims left in their place, we know we can't trust leaving the Taliban or AL-qaeda to reconquer Afghanistan even more. This is not in America's best interests.You should know better than this. Bin Laden called America a paper-tiger after we left
Somalia with our tail between our legs. We are damed if we do and we are damed if we don't with AL-qaeda and the Taliban. We can't repeat our whimpy behavior in Somalia in Afghanistan. So screw them, they have to die.

It is us or them!

Hmmm, that's a read head-scratcher!

This really is a head scratcher for BHO and today's dumbed down graduates of our "esteemed" universities.

In WWII, the answer, without much consideration, would have been "kill both AlQaeda and the Taliban". Then they would have proceeded to make up their best plan to do so and execute the plan without delay.

Could that be the reason for the rise in antagonism against the USA by Arab countries? Could it just be possible that our enemies see this more clearly than us and wish to take advantage of our undereducated dumbed down elite university graduate political leaders and equivacators.

Ultimately, it is all about islam. Both organizations (taliban and al-quaida) are fully committed to imposing islam and sharia using violence. If you expend resources to separate them, you will still have to defeat and destroy islam in other ways. Think about it. We need to defeat islam starting on those soils where democracy and freedom has taken root - USA, Canada, Europe, Russia, India, Thailand, Malaysia, Australia etc. The only reason taliban and al-quaida can do us any damage is that we have enemies our own homeand these enemies carry out their writ, provide knowledge and technology as well as sleeper cells. These enemies have to be expelled and made ineffectual. We also continue to send money into those states that house taliban and al-qaida. We must also starve these pakistani based organizations. I do not know if there is enough political will do any of this.

Yes, Proxywar, I saw that interview, too, and I would assert that she wasn't some "hill-billy warmonger," rather I would speculate that she is probably on the left "side" of the aisle. Furthermore, she asserted that the only way to win this war is to kill "a lot of the Taliban" fighters, and she implied that we could only do so by removing the foolish and naive impediments that have been placed on the NATO forces in order to win "hearts and minds." I infer that she meant, as I already believe, that we need to bomb them and bomb them some more on either side of the border (to hell with the duplicity of Krapistan). And that only when we have spoken to them in the language they understand--unbridled violence--will they acquiesce to the notion that we will not allow another "terror state." Despite all their boasting as for dying in jihad, notice how it is never their tribal leaders or their rich that go on these suicide bomb missions? Kill them in sufficient numbers and either by the process of incapacitation via elimination, or by those who do have something to lose not wanting to really die, we will render this blight of Islam mute and ineffective.

It is only because they perceive us (and unfortunately for the most part, they are correct) as being "feminate" and weak, that they continue these outrages against us. Show these Ishmaelites that we have not all been castrated by the notions of relativism and multiculturalism, and perhaps they will find a weaker target to chase after in their pursuit of Mohammed's glory (such as Europe or Russia). Enough with withdrawing from the countryside so that we can rebuild their plumbing and pave their roads, enough with the only thing falling from our aircraft being water bottles and sweets, enough with teaching democracy to savages, enough with evangelising "freedom and progress," and enough with bankrupting ourselves so as to build a bunch of ingrates new nations! If they so desire war, as the example given by their prophet, let it be they who do most of the dying.

One last matter, may we soon have a President and party that instead of apologising to the muslims, puts them on public notice that if a mini-nuke furnished by Pakistan or Iran goes off (God forbid) in one of our cities; the whole of dal-Islam will be blown off the map by our arsenal of weapons (including the use of nutron bombs that would keep radiation, being that such instead release microwaves, from thereafter raining down on us).

Wait! There's more! If you hurry up and accept the Taliban we will throw in at NO extra cost al Qaeda and a COMPLETE arsenal of Pakistani nukes!

proxywar and Deist,

Read a representative few of the articles by Diana West on her blog and refute her evidence & arguments proving that we are waging a ridiculously PC MC war in both Iraq and Afghanistan -- then I might be persuaded of your points.

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1050/-Losing-Our-Way-to-Victory.aspx

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1042/A-Marine-Corps-Sergeant-Major-Speaks.aspx

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1041/Debating-Afghanistan.aspx

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1055/Making-the-World-Safe-for-Sharia-in-Iraq.aspx

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1053/Nation-Building-in-Afghanistan-It-Didnt-Work-the-First-Time.aspx

In a nutshell:

"There have been some phony arguments put forth for another “surge” in Afghanistan. We need not a surge of troops, we merely need to let our forces there do what needs to be done – kill the enemy. There is this misconception of Afghanistan in particular (and Islam in general) that somehow we can bring Central Asia (and the rest of the Islamic world) kicking and screaming into the 21st Century through good will".

Hesperado, why would I refute her assertion as to the foolishness of a "PC War," if I happen to likewise believe that such is why we are losing (or certainly at least not winning)?

Deist, sorry, my mistake.

Spot on,

The problem with "defining the enemy" is the #1 problem with this amorphous war we are (not) engaged in. The enemy in fact is all Muslims who follow Islam. However, the West refuses to see this -- partially for understandable reasons and partially for irrational reasons -- and bends over backwards and turns itself into logical pretzels to avoid this conclusion, instead constructing a PC-MC Non-War in which we are absurdly fighting. Thus, when we wage the PC-MC Non-War on one concrete front such as Afghanistan, we end up killing mosquitoes that keep materializing and whacking the moles that keep popping up, while ignoring the breeding conditions and social networking of those mosquitoes and moles. This has been leading, increasingly, to absurd situations where Muslim police and military whom we are helping "nation-build" turn on us either overtly or covertly; and to absurd situations such as members of the general populace whose hearts and minds we are "winning" aid and abet the Muslims who are killing our men.

If we redefined the enemy as all Muslims who follow Islam, then it would rationally follow that we would not militarily invade any given Muslim country -- except until such time that it might be deemed strategically feasible and necessary to transform the war into an actual world war as we waged in WW2 (where we actually deployed troops and weaponry in dozens of different countries around the world) -- and we would withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, but we would pursue a more comprehensive strategy based mainly on extricating Muslims from the West, and then enforcing their permanent removal from our lands. It would provide us infinitely more security to deport Muslims from the West (and of course prevent all immigration), than it does bombing mountains and caves in central Asia or trying to create order amid the welter of Islamic barbarity under a thin bureaucratic veneer as in Iraq.

This would be followed by helping all non-Muslim non-Western nations do the same -- the latter then probably becoming the battlefront for concrete battles in the future.

Spot on,

"It would be inexplicable for these expert people to be so dumb. Someone should explain to me how military and political experts can be that dumb unless they are in fact corrupt and do not care about the loss of life of our soldiers in this instance."

I call it quantum ignorance, or intelligent stupidity. It is a matter of a complex paradigm in which people in the West have become emotionally invested for complex psychological and sociological reasons having to do with the Western worldview, which has undergone a major paradigm shift in the past 60 years.

This must be the explanation, for the only alternative is to conclude that a few million Westerners -- including 98% of all of those in managerial and leadership positions in Government, News Media, Academe, the Arts, and Entertainment (the so-called "Elites") -- are consciously evil, pursuing one or more of the venial and/or mortal sins while knowing that they are facilitating our deadly enemy and endangering the lives of themselves, their loved ones and their fellow citizens. This alternative is impermissible for any Westerner who knows his own West. It is the conclusion of various types of conspiracy-theory gnostics (on the Left and the Right) who have become pathologically alienated from their own culture.

And of course as you intimate, simple stupidity would be an untenable explanation.

Hesperado, our point was so aptly illustrated when I just previously went to the lunchroom to see some anchor on CNN reporting about our "nation building" in Afghanistan. They showed the nice schools we built, nice happy Afghans walking along the road, and then this anchorwoman ehibited their naive malaise when she asked some charity worker, "and despite all this [provisions from the West], why are the youth still turning to the Taliban and Jihad?" I wanted, except for the fact that the PC-Police would come drag me out of there, to scream back (indeed at a TV), "BECAUSE OF ISLAM, YOU DUMB RUBE!"

l just heard that some of the military realize they are missing the boat when they cannot go into mosque to find islamists and their weapons.

That is a crucial point. Under international law, a place of worship loses its sacred status if used to store weapons or for other military purposes. If we don't uphold this principle, we'll miss exactly the ones we need most to hit.

Personally, I disagree with the analogy of Nazi Germany, on this particular issue. Nazi Germany was a hijacking of an otherwise civililized nation with a Christian culture and tradition for hard work and quite a bit of freedom. Removing the Nazi regime permitted Germany to revert quickly to a normal state of affairs, and this worked great.

The Taleban doesn't constitute a downright highjacking of Afghan culture. It does constitute a radical interpretation of it, but it isn't culturally alien. Kicking Taleban is a different task than kicking the Nazis. Right now it is degenerating into a drug-financed mafia, which is also not an easy enemy to destroy - just ask Italy if they got rid of their mafia...

My opinion is that we should have given this invasion one year, then pulled out. Democracy-building is radically more difficult than bridge-building, in particular in cultures where democracy does not arise naturally and is easily misused, corrupted and destroyed.

That would probably have led to our enemy plotting another dramatic attack - to which we'd react with another complete crushing of those who did it. In doing so, we'd make clear that attacking us is suicidal, and this cat-and-mouse game that goes on now would not happen.

Henrik, we have to graduate to the position where we assume that every mosque is guilty before proven innocent -- and treat them accordingly.

@Hesperado

Could you succinctly summerize "your main arguement" for me? If I'm going to change your mind I want to know specifically what evidence I have to provide to you inorder to convince you otherwise. Personally, I think you are selling America short.

Let me give you some links and more info to help you put the current sitution into a proper presepective:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_tony_blankley/cherry_picking_intelligence_again

The go-homers/wack-a-molers are the ones cherry-picking evidence.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDA1ZDFiZDQ0NDRhMDZhMjUzM2IzMGM0YTY5NjVlYjQ

We have more people getting killed in Chi-town than in Afghanistan.

http://frontpagemag.com/2009/10/08/decision-time-on-afghanistan-%e2%80%93-by-jacob-laksin/
"General" McChrystal would disagree with retired "Sergeant-Major" Jim Sauer. I gotta go with the General on the ground in afghanistan who is not retired.

There is a book called "A better war" look into it.

Sen. John McCain:"long an advocate of the narrative detailed in "A Better War," warned that while Vietnam may appear to have some parallels to Afghanistan, the better comparison is Iraq, where many of the same commanders now managing the Afghan war learned the value of surging more troops into a battle zone. "Vietnam fell to a conventional invasion of the North Vietnamese military," Mr. McCain said. "The closest parallel to Afghanistan today is Iraq, the strategies that succeeded and the generals that succeeded."

"Administration officials in the Biden camp fear they too could close off the path to a more peaceful resolution of the conflict if 40,000 more troops are sent. They believe most of the Taliban fighters, and some of their leaders, are neither hard-core, violent Islamists nor sympathetic to al Qaeda."

Is this what you believe? You agree with this man? A man who also said he wanted to split Iraq up into three sections for: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd? He was proven wrong
by the surge which lead to a victory in Iraq, and he'll be proven wrong again once the 40k troops are delivered.

Even Robert Gates makes more sense then they all do...

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates has begun to signal his resistance. At a round-table discussion at George Washington University Monday night, he made clear he believed the two groups remain closely linked and that a return of the Taliban would aid in al Qaeda's reemergence. He said: "There's no question in my mind that if the Taliban took control of significant portions of Afghanistan, that that would be added space for al Qaeda to strengthen itself."

"Lewis Sorley, author of "A Better War," argued that once Gen. William Westmoreland was replaced in 1968 by Gen. Creighton Abrams, the war began to turn. In Mr. Sorley's account, Gen. Abrams abandoned the "search and destroy" tactics of his predecessor for a policy of protecting villages, and began to push for Vietnamese institutions to take over tasks once run by Americans, just the policies Gen. McChrystal has advocated in Afghanistan. ie. A Better War describes a different administration, in 1972, when a U.S. military that had finally figured out how to counter the insurgency was rejected by political leaders who bow to popular opinion and end the fight."

One should not be so quick to snatch victory from us yet again, because people like Bin laden notice our defeats in places like Vietnam and Samoila. We can not make that same mistake in Afghanistan. Espeically when the only thing keeping us from victory is political leaders and popular opinion. I say no more running, no more placating, no more popular opinions, no more politicizing the war, We live, they die. I believe in Gen.McChrystal's and general David Petraeus strategy. Now if you want a compromise with me I have no problem with fighting a Cold-War against the Muslim-States as described in Moorthy S. Muthuswamy's book. However, where I think he goes wrong is saying pull out now. Frist I want victory in Afghanistan. I don't need a democracy all I need is a stablized Gov't that can take care of itself like in Iraq. To leave before that is accomplished is putting the cart before the horse, once that is accomplished then we can talk about Moorthy S. Muthuswamy's stragety to fight the Axis of Jihad.

"That would probably have led to our enemy plotting another dramatic attack - to which we'd react with another complete crushing of those who did it. In doing so, we'd make clear that attacking us is suicidal, and this cat-and-mouse game that goes on now would not happen."

So you rather we become Israel? Since 1948 they haven't gotten the point.

So you rather we become Israel?

Israel is great :)

Our stupid calls for 'restraint' unfortunately serves to embolden their enemies - which is NOT what we want.

Israel - without silly restraints - yes.

It would not be risk-free, but I think it would be quite effective. What we have done so far has only reduced the problem, not crushed it - and what the 0bama administration is doing now is downright foolish. Anything else would be better.