The Only Good Muslim

atlascott's picture
Submitted by atlascott on Sat, 2011-11-12 15:44

General John Allen, senior commander of American forces in Afghanistan has relieved Major General Peter Fuller of his duties in Afghanistan.

His indiscretion?

In light of American supported Afghanistani "President" Hamid Karzai's statement that Afghanistan would support Pakistan in a war with the US, Maj. Gen. Fuller commented:

"Why don't you poke me in the eye with a needle? You've got to be kidding me...we just gave you $11.6 billion and you're telling me, 'I really don't care?'"

Yes, Maj. Gen. Fuller, Karzai does not care, praise Allah.

Just as the bastards the US funded and trained did not care, and took our money and training and returned 9/11 upon us as our reward, praise Allah.

They do not care. They see us as confused and weak and stupid, funding them and building their infrastructure abroad, and running scared of offending them domestically.

This must stop.

The only good Muslim is a reformed, former Muslim, willing to accept religious tolerance, equal rights, free speech and freedom from coercion under threats of violence.

Of the Presidential candidates, only Ron Paul even sees the problem here, and he is the only one who will almost immediately fix it.


( categories: )

No Michael

Sandi's picture

your facts that the Iranian regime has not killed Americans.

No Michael. You give me evidence that US forces have not attacked Iran.

Sandi

Michael Moeller's picture

In our own independent judgment, what facts do you have that allows you to state that all "corporate media" reports are unreliable (even though you just posted two videos from "corporate media" and used them as a reliable resource)? Per Kelly's quote, state your facts, such as your facts that the Iranian regime has not killed Americans.

Michael

Discernment

Sandi's picture

"What gives you the ability to dismiss any and every report from corporate media"

James Taggart "That metal is completely untested....whose opinion are you going by"?
Dagny Taggart "My own.."

"Rationality means a focus on reality, a concern for facts and truth. It means that we need to rely on our own independent thought, not on the judgment of others."
David Kelly
The Atlas Society

Sandi

Michael Moeller's picture

Do you realize that the last two videos you posted are from "corporate media"? Why did you use them if you find "corporate media" inherently unreliable?

I think what you really mean to say is that you don't like reports and facts that conflict with your distorted worldview. In other words, if the facts on Iran are that they kill Americans, which is indisputable, then you dismiss it as a government or corporate source. Nice and easy!

Yes, I realize that you -- like the many, if not most Ron Paul supporters -- are in the Hate and Blame America First camp. I also realize that you take your "information" from crackpot conspiracy-mongers like Alex Jones.

I sincerely hope you will answer at least one question. How do you determine whether a source -- corporate or otherwise -- has unreliably reported the facts? What gives you the ability to dismiss any and every report from "corporate media"? Merely because you want to believe so?

Michael

Sandi

Michael Moeller's picture

Al-Awlaki declared himself to be at war with the US, sorry to tell you. Furthermore, as I am sure you are unaware, there is a legal process for determining whether a person is an enemy combatant.

Michael

There is no legal requirement

Sandi's picture

You say "There is no legal requirement -- nor should there be -- for the military to endanger themselves in trying to capture somebody like al-Awlaki when they can simply take him out with a drone missile."

If your government declares a US citizen to be an enemy of the US, taking them out with a drone missile is deemed acceptable.

Big Scary Iran

Sandi's picture

I consider the following. I do not believe news reports from corporate media. I do not believe information put out by my government nor yours. What information is released, is generally regurgitated from a well spun professionally prepared press-release. Investigative journalism is very limited within corporate media but within the realm of the blogosphere, it is everywhere. Some of this news is indeed raw and unrefined and some sources not as reliable as others. Hence, one must take pains to sort the chaff from the wheat and the more one does this, the easier and the more experienced one gets, thus this task becomes easier.

Westerners are subject to propaganda as well as censorhip. There is news that is ignored, un-reported or washed out and spun. It could be said that we are in an "Info War" and indeed, I consider this to be so. Where once I thought Islam was a threat, I no longer do. I consider the real threat to be government.

Is Iran a real threat to the USA? I serioulsy doubt it. Is it a threat to israel perhaps?

What if Mossad was behind 9/11? What if indeed. What if Israel and Saudi Arabia both want war with Iran? Whose or what interest would be served in war with Iran? If fighting Iran is considered a war, what is fighting in Syria and Libyia called? A liberation?

I am not going to give you an answer to these questions because I am still searching the through cobwebs but obviously as the current situation stands, Israel stands to benefit from a war with Iran. Not the USA who will be paying for it. Bearing in mind that Israel has not signed the NPT (Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty), of which Iran is a member. Given the war in Iraq was instigated by claims of weapons of mass destruction, the evidence of such, remains to be seen.

Sandi

Michael Moeller's picture

Now you're just muttering inanities. Are you going to answer my question about the Iranian regime killing Americans? Or are you just going to pretend you care about American life?

The police were at the guy's house with a valid search warrant, and he confronted them with lethal force. The police can respond with lethal force. Is it your position that police should be picked off one-by-one by an armed assailant -- without being allowed to respond by force -- until they capture him so that he can have his day in court?

As to al-Awlaki, please explain where in American legal or historical precedent an enemy combatant (in this case commander) in a foreign land who has declared war against America -- and who happens to be an American citizen -- is entitled to full criminal due process? In fact, Sandi, legal and historical precedent do not support such a position. Since America's earliest days, they have executed enemy combatants and commanders at war with the US. In fact, SCOTUS has allowed the Executive to execute a Nazi saboteur (an American caught on American soil) after military tribunal (see Ex parte Quirin) -- without all the trimmings of normal criminal due process.

Just use common sense. There is no greater renunciation of one's citizenship than to declare war on it. The ultimate goal of those at war with the US is to end the US, so why on earth should they be granted all the rights and privileges of the American justice system? There is no legal requirement -- nor should there be -- for the military to endanger themselves in trying to capture somebody like al-Awlaki when they can simply take him out with a drone missile.

Michael

This young man served 2 tours in Iraq

Sandi's picture

That is a country right on the door-step of big scary Iran.

He came home to America, only to be pumped with 71 rounds by American Police.

With regards to due process. Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen who had not been charged with (or convicted of) any crime. Was not in a battle-field or in a country where the USA had declared war, was assassinated with no judge or jury or basic accountability from anyone.

Sandi

Michael Moeller's picture

What is up with your videos? What the hell does this have to do with drones? Do you live in a state of paranoia?

The police were executing a search warrant, and apparently were confronted with an armed man in a crouched position. When confronted with lethal force, the police can respond with lethal force.

Now, can you answer my question: "Does it sit well with you that you are excusing away the Iranian regime's actual killing of American citizens by referring to it as "big scary Iran"?"

Michael

Pumped full of 71 rounds in 7 seconds

Sandi's picture

 

Uh, Sandi

Michael Moeller's picture

Sandi: "I'd objectively state it is the US government that is the threat. NOT big scary Iran."

Rockwell has no idea what he is talking about, and neither do you. You see, Sandi, Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism against the US. That's not a mere threat, but actual execution of American citizens. Does it sit well with you that you are excusing away the Iranian regime's actual killing of American citizens by referring to it as "big scary Iran"?

Can you point me to where one of these drones have killed an American citizen? Rockwell is fear-mongering here, nothing more.

The police forces of major cities already have helicopters and use them in car chases, in pursuit of fleeing criminals, etc. These are essentially unmanned helicopters presumably used to avoid injuries to pilots, which happens in these pursuits.

Shooting down citizens at random? Using them for unreasonable searches?

I hate to tell you this, but nowhere has this happened. The police still need probable cause for an arrest warrant, so his fear-mongering that these drones are out there to shoot down citizens is beyond ridiculous. Any imaging of the house or curtilage would also be inadmissible under the 4th Amendment as an unreasonable search, as it was struck down when the police tried to use thermal or other imaging from a public street. For surveillance of the house or curtilage, the police must show probable cause and get a search warrant.

Judge Napolitano should know better, but he is a Rockwellian sympathizer and let's this cretin come on his show to fear-monger. Disgusting.

Michael

Remote Drones Leonid?

Sandi's picture

Like the ones the Texas police have?

 

And Iran is the threat?

I'd objectively state it is the US government that is the threat. NOT big scary Iran.

War against terror

Leonid's picture

War against terror should carry on, but not by means of spending trillions of dollars, occupation and rebuilding other countries and sacrifice thousands of American soldiers. It should be done by using modern and relatively inexpensive and preferably unmanned technology, like remote control drones and alike, good intelligence at home and abroad, selective immigration, and most importantly, by introducing Western rational values to the " dirt worshipers" ( BTW, that could do good not only to Muslims). However , if Americans insist on their altruistic drive of rebuilding countries, they could do it first in America. Charity starts at home.

I agree

atlascott's picture

I agree with you that that is EXACTLY what we should be doing.

Human rights in China suck. But we trade with them copiously. Americans travel there, Chinese travel here.

China is a much nicer, freer place now than it was 20 years ago. Freedom is winning.

We should not be nation builders or occupiers.

Under which candidate would we be NOT be occupiers and nation builders? Herman Cain supports several more wars in the Middle East.

Ron Paul supports sparse use of our military, as it should be.

Threats

atlascott's picture

Who represents a greater potential threat to America:

1 - Iran
2 - Russia
3 - China

If you answered #1, check your premises. They are a threat to us only insofar as we are occupying the Middle East.

If we were out of the Middle East, they would fight amongst themselves as they have for thousands of years.

If Iranians, Chinese or Russians do not like conditions there, they should either work to change their country or move here, assuming they accept equal rights for all people, are willing to learn the language and assimilate, accept religious tolerance, and accept NOIF.

China and Russian are not much of a military threat right now, because they are beating us so thoroughly economically, because we are committing suicide in our birth rates, foreign policy, immigration, and in our economic policies.

It is not my country's job to make the world safe for everyone, just to make America free for Americans.

Other countries can go ahead and do their thing, and if they run themselves into the ground, its their business.

We should apply our military force sparingly and in overwhelming force, but only as needed. Then, bring our guys and gals home until the next beating becomes necessary.

Demographically speaking, in one or so generations, there will be no Israel. Palestinians couples are having 4-5 children average to Israel's about 1 per couple. It would be an exceedingly smart thing to do for America to welcome freedom-loving Israelis here.

This pattern is repeating itself all over the West as well - including in America. Muslims immigrants are having 5 kids on average. They overwhelmingly are an insular minority and when assimilation occurs, they kill their own as a warning to not assimilate.

America has to fix its immigration, demographics and economics as a matter of first resort, and then, foreign policy in second place.

Starting wars that are unnecessary is an unbelievably stupid idea for those who pay for it, in blood and money. (That would be Americans).

But for those who do not pay the freight, or who PROFIT from it, it sounds like a good idea, until you think another step or two forward in the process, and realize that America is killing herself because she is not being true to herself. She is not an Empire and was never meant to be - she is a Republic driven by the ideas of liberty, and she needs to get back to that if she is going to survive.

Let me be explicit.

If Iran got a nuke and harmed America with it, or got a nuke and threatened Israel with it, or used it, Iran would be wiped off the map, period.

Russian and China have vastly better technology and multiple nukes. Bigger, better economies. Bigger populations and better armies.

We have overwhelming evidence that our meddling in the Middle East means dead Americans and lost trillions that we can ill afford.

And the popular solution here is another war or wars in the Middle East? Syria? Pakistan? Iran?

Just a really, really bad idea.

Deserve?

atlascott's picture

Let's get one thing straight.

You are gotten exactly what you have earned, so far.

Maybe you can explain to me how I "owe" you anything?

"He's gutless, and his foreign policy is to the left of Noam Chomsky, or at least identical to it."

More unsupported misrepresentation. I suppose that you agree that the Founding Fathers, whose writing overwhlemingly support Ron Paul, were also left of Chomsky? Preposterous.

You haven't exactly answered any questions yourself.

Well, not directly, but your posts DO answer some question.

And worse than this...

Olivia's picture

The guy who thinks that if we only leave terrorists alone that they will be nice to us is...the guy to save us?!? Now that's funny. He's gutless, and his foreign policy is to the left of Noam Chomsky, or at least identical to it.

On Fox's Sunday last weekend, Ron Paul actually said of Iran "why not be a friend to them, as we are to the Soviets and the Chinese?"

Unbelievably stupid idea.

Me..

gregster's picture

"which you fellas seem to support: nation building, world policeman, and primary financier and trainer of future terrorists."

I don't support the nation building. I support blowing enemy combatants heads off, and backing out, until another head pops up. Not "world policeman" but "deadly-pest exterminator."

"primary financier and trainer of future terrorists" versus "let em keep it and look the other way when they have the bomb"

Questions

atlascott's picture

Has the trillions of dollars and thousands of lives lost in rebuilding and occupying bought us anything desirable in Afghanistan? If so, what?

Do you support Herman Cain's foreign policy (seems to be invade, occupy, nation build all suspect nations)? If so, why? If not, what do you support in this regard, and how do we continue to afford such giant expenditures?

Being Engaged

atlascott's picture

Getting out of the region will save us money and lives as compared to what we are doing.

Refusing to respect non-assimilating groups who are by definition here to destroy Western countries and their values as part of a jihad is the matching bookend.

You fellas are confused. Paul is not against the use of force. He just wants to stop Americas role, which you fellas seem to support: nation building, world policeman, and primary financier and trainer of future terrorists.

Read Dr Paul's short book on foreign policy. It helped clarify a lot of issues for me.

Chomsky and Ron Paul...

Michael Moeller's picture

Propagandists for Osama bin Laden.

Chomsky: "I think what he [Ron Paul] said is completely uncontroversial."

Vile, vile stuff.

No

Michael Moeller's picture

Scott: "Of the Presidential candidates, only Ron Paul even sees the problem here, and he is the only one who will almost immediately fix it."

The guy who thinks that if we only leave terrorists alone that they will be nice to us is...the guy to save us?!? Now that's funny. He's gutless, and his foreign policy is to the left of Noam Chomsky, or at least identical to it.

Scott, don't you have some questions to answer first? You're not going to toss bombs at me then slink off to the sidelines, only to reappear later. Not on my watch. I deserve an answer or a retraction.

Michael

Ha

gregster's picture

Scott, that's a Ju-Jitsu argument - "manipulating the opponent's force against himself rather than confronting it with one's own force."

As for "he is the only one who will almost immediately fix it." A false economy. The problem of money thrown at those dirt-worshippers will be temporarily alleviated. Withdrawal won't pacify them. Those people live to hate, and they'll go on doing it. Nothing beats "the Great Satan."

Unfortunately, like your mosquitoes, Muslims need insecticide or squashing.

Paul can't "fix it" because he's too lily-livered to blow the bastards back to dust.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.