America is Fighting World War III

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Like it or not, America is fighting World War III right now. Make no mistake; the enemy is neither terror nor terrorism. It is militant Islam. A logical mind and a quick study of the timeline will bring you to the same conclusions.

THE TIMELINE OF TERRORIST ATTACKS

Nov 1979 - Attack on US Embassy in Tehran. Military Islamic students take 44 US hostages.

1980-82 - Various incidents of kidnapping and murder of Americans through Middle Eastern nations; particularly Bharain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait.

April 1983 - Vehicle loaded with high explosive driven into US Embassy compound in Beirut, Lebanon. Detonation kills 63.

October 1983 - Truck loaded with 2,500 pounds of TNT (gas enhanced) smashes into Marine Barracks in Beirut. 241 killed; three times that many wounded.

September 1984 - Another truck bomb at the new American embassy in Beirut. 11 more killed.

April 1985 - Bomb detonated in bar frequented by US soldiers and sailors in Madrid, Spain. 4 killed, many wounded.

August 1985 - VW loaded with explosives driven into main gate of Rhein-Main Air Force Base in Germany. 22 killed.

October 1985 - Cruise ship Achille Lauro hijacked at sea. American Jew Leon Klinghoffer is selected from the hostages because of his religion and executed while in his wheelchair.

April 1986 - TWA Flight 840 bombed. 4 killed.

May 1988 - PanAm Flight 103 destroyed by a bomb in mid-air over Lockerbie, Scotland. 259 killed.

January 1993 - 2 CIA Agents shot and killed by Islamic militant sniper outside CIA headquarters at Langley, VA.

February 1993 - Truck bomb detonated in parking garage of World Trade Center in NYC. Six killed; more than 1,000 wounded.

November 1995 - Car bomb detonates at US MIlitary Complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 7 killed.

June 1996 - Barracks Complex at Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arbia bombed and destroyed. 19 killed; 500 wounded.

1999-2000 - Coordinated attacks on embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. 224 killed.

October 2000 - USS Cole attacked and damaged by suicide boat-bomb attack while on port visit in Aden, Yemen. 17 American sailors killed.

September 2001 - Attacks by hijacked commercial airliners on twin towers of World Trade Center and the Pentagon. More than 3,000 Americans killed.

"A logical mind and a quick study of the time line will bring you to the same conclusions."

There's nothing logical about joining a group of terrorist attacks together and labeling them WWIII. Unless of course your hope is that by convincing people the US is actually fighting a world war, it must be similar to WWI and WWII and so America could legitimately attack anyone anywhere. I'm sure Bush has already thought about giving the "war on terror" the much catchier title of WWIII, but being short on credibility, has already ditched the idea.

I think this timeline goes back farther than that. I would say 1945.
Ever since Israel came about, Muslims have been angry.

Instead of moving forward and building a Palaestinian state that would have thrived over the last 60 years, they decided that death was a better option.
Go figure.

So are you two going to gloss over such things as the US involvment in Iran, 1950's, and the CIA helping to overthrow the DEMOCRATIC government there, installing the Shah, a brutal dictator. How's that fit into your blinkered US v Muslim world view?

9/11 shall serve us well…


I was eight years old when I encountered my first neighborhood bully. His name was D-- J----; he was in high school and loomed above my friends and me like a malevolent Colossus, smacking us at every encounter with an unsettling, detached amusement. Running did no good; he could bring us to the ground within a few steps. Appeasement in the form of offerings of candy, money, whatever, made things worse.

The turning point in my relationship with him was the day he stole a comic book from me. It was "Giant Superman Annual #1," and it had taken me a couple of weeks in the 1960 economy to save up the 25 cents to buy it. I made the mistake of taking it outside to show my friends; D-- happened by, took it away from me, thumbed through it and then tore it in half. I will never forget that as long as I live, nor will I forget the look on his face when I tore into him, got a lucky punch into a vulnerable area and kept punching. The Colossus collapsed; my friends, emboldened, joined in. A few minutes later, D-- was begging for mercy; several minutes after that, we discontinued our administration of schoolboy justice. D-- never bothered us again.

Appeasement does not work. If you believe otherwise, you're ignoring history.

Liberals ignore the lessons of history because those lessons conflict with their worldview. Appeasement of evildoers, as every schoolboy knows, does not work. It did not work for Neville Chamberlain when he was confronted with the problem of Adolf Hitler; it did not work for Jimmy Carter when he turned his back on the Shah of Iran, a flawed but valued Mideast ally, resulting in an upset in the balance of power in the Middle East; and it did not work for Bill Clinton, who basically funded the North Korean nuclear weapons program that it promised not to build.

—Joe Hartlaub




Great read:

http://www.bookreporter.com/art/covers/140w/0060582510.jpg

Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We've had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven't found any, we will have a credibility problem.

—Charles Krauthammer, April 22, 2003

Great quote:

http://www.nndb.com/people/836/000047695/krauthammer.jpg

Great quote:

The search for logic in anti-Americanism is fruitless. It is in the air the world breathes. Its roots are envy and self-loathing - by peoples who, yearning for modernity but having failed at it, find their one satisfaction in despising modernity's great exemplar.

—Charles Krauthammer


http://www.nndb.com/people/836/000047695/krauthammer.jpg

No, the logic of this statement is unescapable. Isn't he saying the US has no credibility?

Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We've had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven't found any, we will have a credibility problem.

—Charles Krauthammer, April 22, 2003

Great quote:

http://www.nndb.com/people/836/000047695/krauthammer.jpg

So what's the credibility problem? Hey? Krauthammer said if WMD weren't found the US would have a credibility problem.

But you go sweep it under the carpet like a good little doggy

Here's a handy tip for you - post some more irrelevant material when you've lost the argument, woof woof

woof woof, whimper, whimper. Bang on queue yet more typically irrelevant stuff to cover up the fact that you have nothing to say

Cut-and-paste-Joe Irrelevant -
We can continue to post other people's stuff ad nauseum but is there really any point?

Oh well at least this time it is your thread, so who gives a **** if it's full of garbage

The fact is that the world hates us for our wealth, our success, our power. They hate us into incoherence. The Europeans disdain us for our excessive religiosity (manifest, they imagine, by evolution being expelled from schools while prayer is ushered back in)—while the Arab world despises us as purveyors of secularism. We cannot win for losing. We are widely reviled as enemies of Islam, yet in the 1990s we engaged three times in combat—in the Persian Gulf and in the Balkans—to rescue Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo, Muslim peoples all. And in the last two cases, there was nothing in it for the U.S.; it was humanitarianism and good international citizenship of the highest order.

Hey Curley Joe, that John Stuart Mill quote about war not being the ugliest thing, it's not the same John Stuart Mill who said:

In DELIVER US FROM EVIL Hannity draws a direct line connecting the policies of appeasement of the Carter and Clinton administrations with the terrorist attacks upon U.S. soil in the 1990s and 2001. He does so not for the purpose of casting blame but to demonstrate in plain, straightforward prose that in [an] election year cycle those who renew the call for appeasement with terrorists are advocating a policy that has already been attempted, and found wanting.

—Joe Hartlaub




http://www.bookreporter.com/art/covers/140w/0060582510.jpg

So what do you reckon John Stuart Mill is saying about guys like you, you being a conservative sort and all that, when he says:

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives
- John Stuart Mill

Hannity's tone in DELIVER US FROM EVIL is grim and serious, as befits the subject matter, paying service to the ultimate right of individuals and nations to defend themselves against attack. He offers a vigorous and reasoned analysis of the right of the United States to engage in acts of self-determination without the "mother-may-I" approach that the effete among us so champion. Hannity also conclusively demonstrates that the United States has been since at least the mid-twentieth century the last best hope of the world in confronting evil in all its forms, whether it is the despotism of Hitler and the Soviet Union or terrorism in any and all of its forms. While Hannity's tone is not strident, he is unapologetic in his defense of the right of the United States to defend itself and is not afraid, unlike some commentators, to actually name the sacred cows responsible for the present situation.

—Joe Hartlaub

So was John Stuart Mill correct in his assumption about stupid people because just endlessly cutting and pasting other people's stuff on a forum seems to prove his point entirely.

Why don't you go get some free web space to post your cut and pastes? Try http://www.freeservers.com

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives
- John Stuart Mill

How could anyone witness the horrors of September 11, the pure evil of September 11, or the mass graves discovered in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein, and dismiss the idea of evil? And yet many people do—most of them political liberals. Even when they can bring themselves to acknowledge the brutality of a venal tyrant such as Saddam Hussein, they qualify it. "We are not denying that Saddam is a repressive dictator," they say, "but we don't believe we should have attacked Iraq without giving him more time to comply with the U.N. resolutions." For the appeasement-minded liberals of our country, there's always a "but."

—Sean Hannity


Hence the birth of the BUT-monkey…

No wonder you like this Hannity bloke -

Out of Context Quotes: This is one of Sean’s most common tools of deception.

Dismissing Facts: Whenever someone points out a fact or statistic that works against his point of view he dismisses it.

Attack the Messenger: This might be the most often used tactic of the right wing since Nixon used it so successfully.

Cut Off and Redirect: Sean constantly stifles people for the purpose of brining up another issue or to make an accusation, usually making use of his skill at presenting out of context information.

Factual Errors Relentlessly Posed as Truth: Sean’s flagrant disregard for honesty is simply stunning.

HANNITY: "[After 9-11], liberal Democrats at first showed little interest in the investigation of the roots of this massive intelligence failure...[Bush and his team] made it clear that determining the causes of America's security failures and finding and remedying its weak points would be central to their mission." (Let Freedom Ring, by Sean Hannity)

TRUTH: Bush Opposed the creation of a special commission to probe the causes of 9/11 for over a year. On 5/23/02 CBS New Reported "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." Bush didn't relent to pressure to create a commission, mostly from those Hannity would consider "liberal" until September 2002.