MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:pan.2007.04.10.04.01.49.403794@nowhere.com:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 02:10:19 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:
"MyUsefulAddress@googlemail.com" <MyUsefulAddress@googlemail.com>
wrote in news:1176056879.418282.298200@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 4, 2:41 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
MarkA <j...@nowhere.com> wrote
innews:pan.2007.04.04.10.31.05.421000@nowhere.com:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:20:41 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:
MarkA <j...@somewhere.org> wrote in news:pan.2007.04.03.22.58.13
@somewhere.org:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:57:41 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015915.php
Pelosi stresses dialogue with Syria as medicine for what ails
Lebanon
Here's a new idea to bring about peace -- appeasement! Yeah,
that'll do the trick! Why didn't anyone think of that before?
Well, we tried the "Duke Nukem" approach. If Plan A fails, the
next logical step is NOT, repeat NOT, "Try Plan A again."
Ask Neville Chamberlin how well appeasement works.
Next time Syria tries to invade Poland, I'll ask.
Syria is aiming at Lebanon, you idiot.
Not invading though.
What do you think Hezbollah is?
A political party dominated by Muslim fundamentalists.
A party funded by Syrian and Iranian interests.
Do you try to kill flies with an elephant gun? After all, an
elephant gun works great against a charging elephant. The tools
that work against a nation invading its neighbors will not
necessarily work against terrorists.
Syria is a nation, Mark. A nation run by terrorists.
Not invading though.
What do you think Hezbollah is?
In fact, terrorism evolved exactly because it IS an effective way
for a militarily weak group to take on a militarily powerful one.
Actually, it's not. It is a way to dominate an unarmed populace. A
competent military power who isn't afraid to use his power will
destroy a terrorist operation every time, if he's not hamstrung by
weak-kneed liberals who get the willies every time they see a bomb
go off on the television.
Can you give any examples of a terrorist campaign being defeated by
conventional military means?
Algeria. Honduras. Panama. Philippines. Vietnam, pre-1975.
Vietnam, pre-1975??? Yeah, we were really kicking the ***** out of
them. That's why we had to leave.
No, we had to leave because weak-kneed libruls like you decided that
losing was more morally "right" than winning.
By eschewing diplomacy in favor of military action, you are
playing right into their hands.
You can't negotiate from a position of weakness. They have to
believe that you will destroy them before they'll pay attention.
Perhaps they recognize that they can lure a simpleton like Bush into a
quaqmire that will deplete our military, drain our economy, diminish
our stature in the international community, and destroy American's
confidence in their own government, with no hope of gaining anything
of value?
No, they recognize that weak-minded fools like you believe ***** like
that.
It seems to me that Bush is finishing the job that Al Quada began on
9/11.
That's because you're even shallower than you think Bush is.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
