Outrage

[gilliam]

Outrage ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS encounter an angry Army wife.

*“Excuse Me! It’s these men and women, including my husband here in these pictures that you’re able to stand here on a street corner with your anti-war and anti-military signs. They’re risking their lives for you and the rest of our country and they don’t even know you. But they do it anyway, not because they have to but because it’s their duty as a U.S. Soldier.”*You won’t believe what happened next.

indepundit.com/archive2/2005/10/outrage.html#

 

[AmyS]

Great post… Thanks Gilliam… when are these people going to get it?

 

[abcdefg]

AmyS:

Great post… Thanks Gilliam… when are these people going to get it?

Ditto

 

[adventist]

ALL OF U BETTER GET RIGHT WITH THE LORD CUZ THAT SUNDAY WORSHIPPING IS NOT RIGHT YOU WORSHIP IDOLS, THE VIRGIN MARY, CROSSES, AND ESPECIALLY …HOW CAN A PRIEST FORGIVE YOU FOR UR SINS? WHERE IN THE BIBLE IT SAY ANY HUMAN BEING CAN FORGIVE YOU ? YALL ALL ARE WALKING AROUND IN THAT SAME SIN YOU HAD BEFOR YOU WENT TO THAT GUY YOU CALL UR PRIESTHOOD OR… COME TO HEAVEN WITH THE REST OF US… MAY GOD BLESS US ALL THAT CONFUSED FIGURE IS THE CATHOLIC RELIGION AND, YES YALL WILL BRING THE MARK OF THE BEAST AND THERE IS NO SUCH THING MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE AS THE RAPTURE

JOHN CHAPT 14 VERSE 6: JESUS SAITH UNTO HIM, IAM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE, NO MAN COMETH UNTO MY FATHER,BUT BY ME!!! MEANING MY THE JEWS AND THE CRISTIANS SAVOUIR JESUS CHRIST…

 

[MikeWM]

gilliam:

"Excuse Me! It’s these men and women, including my husband here in these pictures that you’re able to stand here on a street corner with your anti-war and anti-military signs.
​

Really? I didn’t realise freedom of speech in the USA was contingent on a successful invasion of a distant Middle East country. How odd.

Mike​

 

[abcdefg]

MikeWM:

Really? I didn’t realise freedom of speech in the USA was contingent on a successful invasion of a distant Middle East country. How odd.

Mike

Really? Am I right in assuming you didn’t realise freedom of speech in the USA was contingent on successful battles in distant Europe in WW2? How odd.

 

[MikeWM]

abcdefg:

Really? Am I right in assuming you didn’t realise freedom of speech in the USA was contingent on successful battles in distant Europe in WW2? How odd.

Germany declared war on the USA, not the other way around.

Mike

 

[geezerbob]

MikeWM:

Germany declared war on the USA, not the other way around.

Mike

War was declared by both countries, but what does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

Freedom of speech in the US is contingent on it maintaining all its freedoms as a sovereign democratic republic and not becoming part of a caliphate. Try connecting the dots. Maybe a light bulb will come on.

 

[MikeWM]

geezerbob:

War was declared by both countries, but what does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

Very little, but I wasn’t the one to bring up the Nazis. Germany declared war on the US first. Enough said about that.

Freedom of speech in the US is contingent on it maintaining all its freedoms as a sovereign democratic republic and not becoming part of a caliphate. Try connecting the dots. Maybe a light bulb will come on.

Thanks, but there is no need to be rude. Do you really think Iraq - which was itself not run as a fundamentalist Islamic society, which is why Bin Laden hated Saddam - was going to manage to subvert the entire United States and establish a caliphate?!?! It’s like an elephant being scared of a mouse, but even sillier.

Mike

 

[geezerbob]

Sorry about sounding rude. Just get tired of the constant criticizing of the US by others, with never a word of praise or encouragement about anything.

Ever read Gulliver’s Travels? Enough little people succeeded in bringing down the big guy. The radicals have the same bent about the US. Two attacks on the WTC, the USS Cole, the embassies, the London subways, etc., were all attempts to nibble away at western culture in general, and the US and GB in particular. Note that these things were in the planning stages or had occurred well before the invasion of Iraq. When diplomacy fails and the attacks keep happening, what do you propose that we (including your country) do?

Observe carefully and objectively what is happening in Iran and Syria right now and don’t try to assign motives beforehand. Diplomacy has accomplished little or nothing, the UN has gotten involved, and both countries have essentially told the UN to go to h… Iran is openly scoffing at world opinion while Syria says one thing and does another. How would you propose that the UN and the rest of the world deal with these two countries? No criticism of things past, please. We are where we are and that’s what we’ve got to deal with.

 

[aimee]

Outrage ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS encounter an angry Army wife.

*“Excuse Me! It’s these men and women, including my husband here in these pictures that you’re able to stand here on a street corner with your anti-war and anti-military signs. They’re risking their lives for you and the rest of our country and they don’t even know you. But they do it anyway, not because they have to but because it’s their duty as a U.S. Soldier.”*You won’t believe what happened next.

indepundit.com/archive2/2005/10/outrage.html#

Thanks, g…for posting…

 

[MikeWM]

geezerbob:

Sorry about sounding rude. Just get tired of the constant criticizing of the US by others, with never a word of praise or encouragement about anything.

No worries - though I don’t think it applies entirely to me. While I am often critical of the specific subjects brought up here - because, mostly, this is a conservative forum, and I am not a conservative - I do support people when I think they are doing the right thing. Only last week I posted a message saying ‘Go President Bush!’ when I agreed with something

Ever read Gulliver’s Travels? Enough little people succeeded in bringing down the big guy. The radicals have the same bent about the US. Two attacks on the WTC, the USS Cole, the embassies, the London subways, etc., were all attempts to nibble away at western culture in general, and the US and GB in particular. Note that these things were in the planning stages or had occurred well before the invasion of Iraq. When diplomacy fails and the attacks keep happening, what do you propose that we (including your country) do?

Ah, well there is a question I’ve been thinking about over the past week, when life hasn’t been getting in the way. Right now I dunno - but in my opinion, you don’t make things worse, and I think invading Iraq has made things worse.

You’re right that they are trying to ‘nibble’ away, and (with the probable exception of London) they were doing it before Iraq.

It has to be said though that the UK suffered a large number of terrorist incidents in the 70s, 80s and 90s from the IRA, and while there was some behind-the-scenes action going on, in the end we just got annoyed, buried the dead, and got on with life. Frankly, you have to. I don’t believe you can defeat a terrorist group by simply trying to kill them - it creates martyrs, and only makes the group bigger. Instead you have to remove their base and their support. Invading Iraq has made their base and their support stronger rather than eroding it.

Observe carefully and objectively what is happening in Iran and Syria right now and don’t try to assign motives beforehand. Diplomacy has accomplished little or nothing, the UN has gotten involved, and both countries have essentially told the UN to go to h…

…as essentially did the US and UK over the invasion of Iraq. I don’t see how we can expect other countries to respect the authority of the UN if we don’t.

Iran is openly scoffing at world opinion while Syria says one thing and does another. How would you propose that the UN and the rest of the world deal with these two countries? No criticism of things past, please. We are where we are and that’s what we’ve got to deal with.

Iran has an extremist leader now. I still think that is at least in part due to their feeling threatened. As for Syria, to put it simply I don’t really know enough about the situation to pass comment

Mike

 

[abcdefg]

MikeWM:

Ah, well there is a question I’ve been thinking about over the past week, when life hasn’t been getting in the way. Right now I dunno - but in my opinion, you don’t make things worse, and I think invading Iraq has made things worse.

You’re right that they are trying to ‘nibble’ away, and (with the probable exception of London) they were doing it before Iraq.

It has to be said though that the UK suffered a large number of terrorist incidents in the 70s, 80s and 90s from the IRA, and while there was some behind-the-scenes action going on, in the end we just got annoyed, buried the dead, and got on with life. Frankly, you have to. I don’t believe you can defeat a terrorist group by simply trying to kill them - it creates martyrs, and only makes the group bigger. Instead you have to remove their base and their support. Invading Iraq has made their base and their support stronger rather than eroding it.

What do you think a goverment should do to stop terrorism? answer in detail please.

MikeWM:

…as essentially did the US and UK over the invasion of Iraq. I don’t see how we can expect other countries to respect the authority of the UN if we don’t.

Why do you think UN’s authority should be respected and what do you mean by “respecting UN’s authority”? UN isn’t impeccable.

MikeWM:

Iran has an extremist leader now. I still think that is at least in part due to their feeling threatened. As for Syria, to put it simply I don’t really know enough about the situation to pass comment

Mike

Why could NAZI party gain more and more votes before coming to power? Was Germany really threatened before WW2? people felt threatened because of NAZI propaganda.

 

[MikeWM]

abcdefg:

What do you think a goverment should do to stop terrorism? answer in detail please.

Stopping terrorists once they are created is very difficult, especially if they are willing to sacrifice their own lives (suicide bombers). The first and most vital thing you must do is prevent them being created in the first place. The second thing is to erode their support, mainly through clever diplomacy and manoeuvering. Look at what has happened in Northern Ireland. Was it as easy as sending in an army, detaining a number of men, many of whom innocent, and blowing up some things? No. It was very hard work. In the rush to ‘do something’ lets not do the things that created further terrorists. It is far easier to create terrorists than to destroy them.

Why do you think UN’s authority should be respected and what do you mean by “respecting UN’s authority”? UN isn’t impeccable.

I think if we are demanding Syria and Iran respect the UN’s authority then we should be doing the same. This is the raison d’etre of the UN. We might not like the things they do sometime, but this applies to everyone. If we do as we ought, the pressure on other countries to do the same increases.

Why could NAZI party gain more and more votes before coming to power? Was Germany really threatened before WW2? people felt threatened because of NAZI propaganda.

Why does everything come down to the Nazis when I discuss things with you? Do these forums have some equivalent of Godwin’s Law - and if not, can I suggest one?

Mike

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

****
“…It’s these men and women, including my husband here in these pictures that you’re able to stand here on a street corner with your anti-war and anti-military signs. They’re risking their lives for you and the rest of our country…”

As far as I’m concerned, the people in the military might honestly believe they are risking their lives for myself and the rest of the country, but I still think they are on a fool’s errand that I wish our leaders had not sent them on. As to those same people protecting our rights to protest the same fool’s errand, I don’t think that our venture in Iraq protects those rights. Maybe something George Washington did, maybe something Eisenhauer did, maybe something others did in the past, but not Iraq, not now. We were never in danger of losing our rights to Saddam and Iraq, however, with the govt’s response in the form of the Patriot Act and other actions, we are on the path to totalitarianism.

 

[MikeWM]

Elaine's Cross:

We were never in danger of losing our rights to Saddam and Iraq, however, with the govt’s response in the form of the Patriot Act and other actions, we are on the path to totalitarianism.

Very well said. Unfortunately the situation here in Britain is the same, and possibly even worse with the new Terrorism Bill just starting its way through Parliament. Remind me again - didn’t the terrorists want to change our way of life? Looks like they are doing a good job

Mike

 

[Richardols]

MikeWM:

Do you really think Iraq - which was itself not run as a fundamentalist Islamic society, which is why Bin Laden hated Saddam - was going to manage to subvert the entire United States and establish a caliphate?!?! It’s like an elephant being scared of a mouse, but even sillier.

All this “we’ve got to stop them in Iraq before the mujahadeen are landing on our beaches” panic talk reminds me of the Red Scare of the early 1920s. Read about it.

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

MikeWM:

Remind me again - didn’t the terrorists want to change our way of life? Looks like they are doing a good job

Mike

They did an excellent job.

 

[MikeWM]

Richardols:

All this “we’ve got to stop them in Iraq before the mujahadeen are landing on our beaches” panic talk reminds me of the Red Scare of the early 1920s. Read about it.

Not to mention that, while there may have been terrorists that did like the idea of a caliphate, Saddam Hussein didn’t want a caliphate in America - he didn’t even want or have a caliphate in Iraq, never mind America!

Living in a state of constant fear isn’t for me, thanks.

And, incidentally, nice to see you again

Mike

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

Richardols:

All this “we’ve got to stop them in Iraq before the mujahadeen are landing on our beaches” panic talk reminds .

Good line.