Not So Young But Angry Conservatives Unite

Getting sick of the progressively worse slant and obvious bias of the media? Got booted out of other sites for offending too many liberals? Make this your home. If you SPAM here, you're gone. Trolling? Gone. Insult other posters I agree with. Gone. Get the pic. Private sanctum, private rules. No Fairness Doctrine and PC wussiness tolerated here..... ECCLESIASTES 10:2- The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of a fool to the left.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Religion of Pieces kills in Jordan

56 and counting is the death total.

Three hotels in Amman were bombed yesterday.

Al Qaeda took responsibility, wow, could this be part of the Global War on Terror or just due to Iraq? Hmmmmm.

LINK: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/10/D8DPK7TG4.html

On the bright side, Jordanians are not gonna sit and take it, they are mad as hell.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/10/jordan.blasts/index.html

Well, this is proof yet, that the War on Terror will not stop, Bin Laden or no. And proof that the bastards are desparate and on the run.

They won't win.

10 Comments:

  • At 3:26 PM, Blogger Les said…

    "And proof that the bastards are desparate and on the run."

    How so?

     
  • At 7:57 PM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Since they're expanding their war to anyone who did not support the war in Iraq. Look at the bombings in Istanbul and Morocco 2 years ago. Desparate, they're using dogs and retards for bombers now. They're running low on manpower and their Volksturmm phase will be soon.

    Les, whose side are you on, just curious?

     
  • At 12:25 PM, Blogger Les said…

    By "side", I'll assume you mean us or the terrorists. If that's the case, I'm not even going to dignify that question with a response.

     
  • At 1:32 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    As he shouldn't, Nick, because your question requires no dignification. ...for the record, it never does - whenever you ask it.

    I also do not think anyone is on the run Nick. Honestly, I wish it were the case. I wish violence would stop - but it's not going to. No matter how many villages we bomb, radicals will exist.

    A history professor of mine in college once gave us a final with only one question on it. 'Will there ever be an end to war?'

    Of course, you had to support with evidence and the question probably drew more from philosophy than it did history. Still, it was a really hard question. You think you can answer it Nick?

     
  • At 3:43 PM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Well Les, tell you what, if you don't care to dignify that question with a response, try this one..... Why is it everytime there is an attack, someone must and always yell the sky is falling? How come attacks outside the area aren't seen for what they are? Desparate taunting, aka death wish?

    And Kevin, thanks for the snide response. Always appreciated. Will there ever be an end to war? Probably not. Not war in general, not conflict. The war on terror? At some point, there will be. People thought World War II would never end and it did. People thought the Cold War would last a century but it went for about half the projected time.

    Kevin, war has been going on since the Hittites, through Greece, Rome, Bynzantium, The Crusades, Turks, Napoleon, Nazis, and the current wave of terrorists. It won't end, til there is a realization that aggression only causes more war and death. Thus, why we must fight. Our troops have a job, because sadly others will not, do not, and never want to get the picture.

    Sadly, war must be fought in response to violence, in hopes to stop it.

    Some say, violence did not solve a thing....

    Actually, force with superiority did win out against, The Kaiser, Napoleon, Hitler, the USSR, Saddam Hussein, and others in the wastebin of history.

    Does this mean picking fights is the answer? No. When a country declines to follow international law and disregard no-fly zones, builds contraband nukes, poison gas, etc. they pick the fight. When a dictator slaughters millions who oppose them, including his sons in law, then there's reason to oust the bastard.

    Hitler picked a fight, and he lost royally. Mussolini, same. Pol Pot, same. USSR about did, and blinked many a time, finally went bankrupt. Now, what the future has for the terrorists, eventual defeat. When, who knows. Who's after them? I dunno, and don't wanna know.

    There's an answer or two for you gents to pick and dissect, which I am sure you will.

     
  • At 2:55 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Nick,

    Actually, I thought your response was pretty good and I agreed with a number of your points. One paradox that you brought up, however, is the following:

    [speaking of war] It won't end, til there is a realization that aggression only causes more war and death. Thus, why we must fight.

    I mean -- who is supposed to realize that aggression only causes more war and death? The terrorists? It's not entirely a trick question but while I agree with you, your very logical response paves way to the same mindset that your would-be liberal adversaries have.

    That mindset being that if WE don't stop being aggressive to the rest of the world, why should the rest of the world stop being aggressive to each other, and us?

    I guess it's a chicken before the egg sort of question, but I think there are only two ways to deal with what you are talking about:

    (a) lead by example
    (b) lead by aggression, force and dominance.

    It SEEMS that we are choosing to use the latter and yet your own logic would dictate that the latter use of aggression "...only causes more war and death".

     
  • At 2:58 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    Also, this just struck me as odd when rereading what you wrote:

    Kevin, war has been going on since the Hittites, through Greece, Rome, Bynzantium, The Crusades, Turks, Napoleon, Nazis, and the current wave of terrorists.

    This isn't me picking on you - just genuinely asking, are you comparing The Crusades to modern terrorism?

     
  • At 4:13 PM, Blogger NDwalters said…

    Nope, comparing the ages of war. Was Hannibal a terrorist? Were the Third and Fourth Crusades that sacked Constantinople terrorism? Nope, they called it war. And right now, terrorism is a more prominent if not rising and ugly form of war.

     
  • At 5:05 PM, Blogger Kevin said…

    What about my first response?

     
  • At 8:51 PM, Blogger chefwes said…

    Actually, yeah, "I" am comparing the Crusades to terrorism, in the actual FACT that the "Crusades" were a direct response to the "Jihads", the 2nd, I believe it was, where the Muslims, were attacking and taking over the Europeans, regardless of your revisionist History.
    The "Crusades" ( again, regardless of your revisionist History, were much like the present "War on Terror", in that a group of people have the balls to stand up to those who wish to destroy, dominate and control them, in order to live their lives, in a manner in which THEY (not the agressors, in this specific case, the Muslims) see fit. They wished to live without being enslaved, or without having to pay the dhimmitude taxes.
    The history is all there, if you have the will, desire, or brains to actually read it and not be led around by your pacifist, leftist leaders Moveon.Org , Mikey Moore, Babs Streisand and other socialistic, communistic, fanatical liberal leaders!

     

Post a Comment

<< Home