Connect with us

Constitution

Sovereignty under fire: treason disguised

Published

on

The Constitution, which sets forth the principle of rule of law, defines what is unconstitutional, and guarantees freedom of speech and other liberties of a Constitutional republic, and also describes the impeachment power. (How many know of the Jewish roots of this document?) Hypocrisy threatens Constitutional government. Could Israel use a constitution like this? More to the point: would a Convention of States save it, or destroy it? (Example: civil asset forfeiture violates the Constitution.) Quick fixes like Regulation Freedom Amendments weaken it. Furthermore: the Constitution provides for removing, and punishing, a judge who commits treason in his rulings. Furthermore, opponents who engage in lawfare against an elected President risk breaking the Constitution.

The United States has always enjoyed its uniqueness as a sovereign nation. Unlike the Magna Carta where the king granted some rights to the people, our Constitution granted specific rights to the government. The Framers did this because they knew, keenly, that our rights came from God and not from government. The tyrannies that our Founders suffered through led them to realize that governments existed to protect our God-given rights, not to dictate them or infringe upon them. And they further understood that we were entitled to sovereignty – or freedom from outside control.

The preamble to the Declaration of Independence is about dissolving ties with a tyrannical government but it is also about sovereignty. It sets the stage for one of the world’s most impressive documents. It says:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them… (emphasis added)

The United Nations, an organization dedicated to subsuming the sovereignty of all nations

The flag of the United Nations. (Public domain as per UN policy.)

A direct threat to sovereignty

Today the sovereignty that they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to secure for us is now under fire. The fire that is destroying our rights and our liberties is subtle. It doesn’t flare out of control in an obvious way, drawing attention to itself for everyone to see. It is far more insidious and has stealthily crept in under our radar, like a ravenous cancer that is shaking the very foundations of this once sovereign nation. It uses phrases that are easily interpreted to sound innocuous and even beneficial; phrases like sustainability, or gun control, or environmental protection, or protecting the rights of the child. After all, who doesn’t want to preserve the environment, protect civilization from crazed shooters, or protect helpless children? But when the United Nations intervenes to “protect” us from these things, citizen beware!!! With their protection comes the surrender of our sovereignty as an independent nation and a free people. Let me properly define the word “protection.” When used by the U.N. protection means they control how we live and where we live, how we raise our children, and in the process they deprive us of our right to defend ourselves from their control. The insidious part is that they make it all look so attractive.

Since we are constitutionally bound to honor treaties that our government enters into, the submission of our sovereignty to this foreign body is tantamount to a plot to overthrow our government – and using our own Constitution to do it. Therefore, it is nothing less than treason!

The atrocities that our representatives have committed against our sovereignty in the name of globalization are stunning. They encompass U.N. Agenda 21, The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. I will be doing a series of articles that addresses different aspects of each of these assaults against our sovereignty.

It is my great hope that this series will motivate us to stand together and fight while it is still day. Winston Churchill observed, “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you with only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory at all, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

May God have mercy on these United States.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Website | + posts

RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.

CATEGORY:Constitution
29 Comments
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

29 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nathan Bickel

Muslim countries who are part of the UN, eschew foreigners on their land. All one has to do, is observe. American soldiers will not remain in Iraq and Afghanistan as they have in Germany and Japan. We are not wanted. A case in point is the current situation with the Muslims going berserk, spreading mayhem and massacre, over the recent burning of the Koran books.

However, these Muslim countries which cherish their sovereignty have no problem throwing their weight around through their UN participation. There is a big push by Muslims, working the UN “engine,” [game] to outlaw any criticism of Islam throughout the world. Thus, our American Constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights are at risk by being subject to international law, imposed upon us by the UN.

I understand, and others have stated so, that the United States must withdraw from the UN.

First of all, that withdrawal would accomplish the purpose of saving oodles of money, being that the United Nations is primarily funded by the United States. But, (secondly and more importantly), the United States needs to withdraw its UN membership, and be done with it. Thus, the US would not be held hostage and subject to global law, put upon it, through UN directed international law directives, pushed and influenced by our enemies.

Tonto USA

Personally, I think the very best way to deal with radical muslims is to slaughter them wholesale….just as they do to Christians or any other non-muslims in their periodic fits of rage they seem to have from time to time. Brutality, slaughter and destruction is what they relate to and understand. Afterwards….simply walk away from the wreckage and repeat as necessary. Their backwards and primative mindset will eventually come to understand where the “line they do not cross” is located.
The left in this country cherishes war because it diverts attention from the power grabbing and freedon usurping machinations they constantly promote to further their Nazi/socialist agenda. Do you know how many card carrying communist party members their are infesting our government? They are even resident in our White House. War, for the left is also a handy tool to “weed out” the undesirable, non-left-leaning members of the officer’s corps (pronounced “Core”, not “corpse”). The left sees to it that officers amenable to leftist agenda are promoted and the others are passed over or let go.
Frankly, treason is rampant in this country….that’s how we got Obama and Co. in power…..and Chris Dodd, Barney Franks and Maxine Waters type people in our government.

Nathan Bickel

Tonto USA: Re: Your March 7, 2012 at 8:36 am comment,

I cannot dispute your line of thinking. After all, the US is, (for all intents and purposes) at war with radical Islam. The problem is, the libs who are the practicioners of political correctness and multiculturalism who make it their goal to smoke the cultural peace pipe with these immoral and murderous beasts.

Having stated the above, the US is ripe to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan. Its a pipe dream to think that Constitutionally sound democracy can be had in that Muslim culture. Already there is the Karzai government in place. The country has its own type of Muslim government which which still persecutes Christians and those of other religious persuasions. American blood and resources there, need not be spilled and wasted any longer……

DinsdaleP

“Personally, I think the very best way to deal with radical muslims is to slaughter them wholesale”

“Afterwards….simply walk away from the wreckage and repeat as necessary. Their backwards and primative mindset will eventually come to understand where the “line they do not cross” is located.”

I don’t know what was more unsettling; the statements above from Tonto USA, or when Pastor Emeritus Bickel answered this by saying “I cannot dispute your line of thinking”.

I’m far from a pacifist, and I have personal connections to the losses of 9/11. However, the idea of slaughtering any group of people wholesale “until they get the point” is about as un-Christian a viewpoint as I can conceive.

“Your way of life is a threat to my way of life, so I’m going to kill you en masse to remove that threat.”

That’s supposed to be the perspective we accuse the radicals of holding, but that’s the perspective Tonto and Pastor Bickel are promoting themselves. Let’s not even get into the question of how to define when someone is practicing “radical Islam”, and who gets to decide.

What we need to focus on is developing strong, accurate and reliable intelligence, and to use the findings of that intelligence to justify surgical interventions when and where they are needed. Say what you want about President Obama in other respects, but he has no problem taking unilateral action in sovereign states like Pakistan to protect American security, and not feeling compelled to share plans with untrustworthy nations. Picking off known terror leaders with drones doesn’t provoke the outrage that leveling a town or invading a country does, and with the head gone, the body flails.

The difference of this approach compared to what Tonto and Pastor Bickel are advocating is that Obama looks to find the tumor and remove it with surgery, while these men want to strafe the patient with bullets until no trace of a tumor is left.

On a less dramatic level, any reasonable person can also see that wiping people out in large numbers over religious extremism only inspires more people to become extremists.

I prefer the analogy of East and West Germany. It took time, but the West kept the Communism of the East contained rather than seeking to destroy it as a threat, and tolerated some setbacks along the way. In the end, the men and women of East Germany could not ignore the misery of their lives compared to the prosperity of the West, and drove the change from within because they wanted it. No one could have forced that change on them and have it taken root as strongly, and any active attack would only have spawned an equally active resistance.

We can have a strong defense and national security that doesn’t rely on the mass slaughter of enemies. Containing them instead, and having reliable intelligence to maintain that isolation and deal with threats surgically is better, not just practically, but morally.

Nathan Bickel

DinsdaleP: Re: Your March 7, 2012 at 11:12 pm comment,

You seem to take exception with my response comment to “Tonto USA.” I stated that I cannot dispute his opinion when he offered his comment about radical Muslims. Don’t you remember that America is at war against radical Islam? Why do you insist on using the old irrational argument, that because someone is a Christian or Christian pastor that they (therefore) cannot have a political opinion?

Furthermore, in illogical fashion, I think that you exaggerate my position, as if I support a full scale Christian Crusade of Muslim annihilation. I repeat, my comments were restricted to radical Islamists who are presently at war with America.

Even though I support a US military withdrawal from Afghanistan, I am all for America supporting Israel in defense of its Muslim terrorist enemies. Anything that the US can do in annihilating Muslim terrorists who are intent on harming and destroying Israel, has my full support. Hopefully, if Obama can be replaced, we will have a new president, who will work hand in hand with Israeli Intelligence to specifically target global Islamic terrorism. That’s the type of “annihilation” that I support to contain radical Muslims.

Finally, I don’t know what planet you are launching your thoughts from, but, I ask of you next time, when you reply to a comment of mine, to put your words into someone else’s mouth, and not mine!

DinsdaleP

Pastor Bickel,

I’ve never stated that being a Christian minister requires one to muzzle his views – that’s putting words in my mouth.

You said that you cannot dispute Tonto’s opinion when he offered his comment about radical Muslims. Tonto’s opinion was that he thought “the very best way to deal with radical muslims is to slaughter them wholesale”, that “Brutality, slaughter and destruction is what they relate to and understand”, and that we should “repeat as necessary”. I didn’t see a refutation of any of Tonto’s sentiments in what you said, so it seemed reasonable to act as if you had no objection to any of them. Killing in self-defense is acceptable to practically everyone. Brutality and wholesale slaughter is not, and yes, it’s a surprising attitude for a Christian pastor to hold. You have every right to do so, of course.

Setting aside the question of how you can identify and separate only the radical Muslims from the billion or so adherents worldwide, is killing them in a brutal way going to deter them, or just motivate more recruits through their perceived martyrdom?

Should we take out confirmed cells with surgical strikes? Absolutely. Should we level training camps and freeze the assets & bank accounts that fund terror groups? Of course.

But when you talk about broader levels of destruction, killing and brutality to try to overwhelm a limited number of terrorists into submission, all you do is incur the hatred of the general population for using such methods.

You want to send a message? If you’re plotting against America there are only two outcomes:
You can die in the field from a predator drone attack or a surgical strike, the way Bin Laden did. Not only did we gather priceless intel from that strike versus just bombing the building, but we showed the world the pathetic reality that was his existence, instead of feeding the hero myth they tried to promote.
The other outcome is that you can be captured alive, interrogated using actual effective techniques instead of torture, then put on trial, convicted and sent to a maximum security prison in the states to spend the rest of your life rotting in obscurity. It worked fine for the people behind the WTC bombing in 1993 and for other individuals since then – they’re not martyrs, they’re embarrassing failures in orange jumpsuits.

American justice isn’t weakness, and it earns a lot more respect from the world than large-scale brutality & killing.

Finally, no sane person believes that all worldviews are equal in validity, morality or acceptability. The 9/11 attackers were twisted, evil men. There are other twisted, evil men still out there, and I would lay my life down in the defense of my country against them. I just reject the premise that such a defense requires me to descend to their level of brutality and disregard for human life.

Nathan Bickel

DinsdaleP: Re: Your March 9, 2012 at 1:38 am comment,

I will not argue with you, but first of all, I “took it” that you implied by your “unChristian” verbage [word] that introducing the “Christian aspect” was not appropriate with you. Sorry, if I misunderstood where you were coming from. I never reasoned with my remarks that any “Christian crusade” needed to be invoked to wage war against radical Islamists.

Also, you assume alot. You stated: “…..I didn’t see a refutation of any of Tonto’s sentiments in what you said, so it seemed reasonable to act as if you had no objection to any of them……” [Your words]

I didn’t know from the above quote of yours that I was required to “refute” anything. Apparently, you changed (or, attempted to change) the course of the discussion by requiring me to analze “Tonto USA’S” comment. The conversation was already framed. There was no need to re-frame it.

Finally, you seem to sum up your comment reply with the following: “…..I just reject the premise that such a defense requires me to descend to their level of brutality and disregard for human life.”

I don’t think that I ever stated that the US should descend to the terrorists “level of brutality and disregard human life.” My comments had to do with the nature of war against radical Muslims, the same (or similar) to the comments of Tonto. There is no need to blow my comment remarks, – or, for that matter, his, out of proportion, for the (needless) sake of being argumentive.

JT

I can only assume that Tonto is trolling this blog, otherwise how can he – and pastor Bickel for that matter – claim that their solution is any different from that proposed by a certain German gentleman, to dispose of a specific group of people he didn’t like?

I really would like them to explain how America committing “wholesale slaughter” of Muslims is any different to Nazi Germany slaughtering the Jews. And don’t speak of “war” because “wholesale slaughter” implies killing women and children too.

I would also like them to please explain how this conforms with their pro-life mindset.

DinsdaleP

Terry, what do you do about a holy book that fairly screams at its readers as to how the disobedient and unfaithful are to be dealt with:

“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”

(A parable told by Jesus, but still a metaphor for how men who rejected God as their ruler should be treated)

1 Thessalonians 2 is pretty harsh in condemning the Jews of that time, and passages like that were used to justify the persecution of Jews in the name of Jesus like this person did:

“First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians.”

Doesn’t sound too far off from what Tonto is talking about doing to radical Muslims to set an intimidating example and beat them until they leave us alone. That last quote was from the writings of Martin Luther, by the way.

Leaders who incite senseless violence can come from any religion, and Christianity has been no exception throughout its history. If you cherry-pick and distort enough you can justify all sorts of inhumane acts against other people. The responsibility lies with the men doing the distorting, not the material that was being distorted. The Qur’an and the Bible can only be misused in this way of men choose to do so, and other men allow themselves to be misled.

JT

So rather than going after those guilty of the atrocity, you advocate genocide? As I said to Pastor Bickel, you’re happy to see the murder of millions, because of the actions of a few.

Let me, if you’re happy to commit genocide on behalf of 3,000 dead Americans, what are you going to do to the Presidents of the various alcohol and tobacco companies – because they kill far more Americans each year.

And a final point, I believe the Bible does plenty of its own screaming about murdering on a massive scale. Or do you dispute that?

Do you realise that the kind of comments appearing on this page are no different from those supposedly uttered by the people you want to slaughter wholesale. What does that make you?

JT

Of course not all Muslims are on board that “fight and slay the infidels stuff.” The problem is that there seems to be an awful lot of tarring with the same brush going on. That’s like calling all Americans racist because of the actions of the KKK.

Also, if you wanted a public hearing on a belief system that drives people to murder, then you’d have to include the belief that drove McVie, the belief that drove Manson, Koresh, Jones, etc. All mass murderers are not Muslims. However, I will concede that concept of offering 72 virgins to martyrs is probably a good way to entice people who are likely poor, poorly educated and the only thing they know about women is that they have eyes.

But even that’s a throwback to the hashishem, who would get their assassins high and induce images of the paradise they would ascend to if they died for the cause. It’s not really any different to the indulgences offered to the Crusaders by the Church, except that Western civilisation has moved on. However, it’s not impossible that if it hadn’t been for people like Luther, we’d still have indulgences and buying people out of Purgatory today.

DinsdaleP

Terry, what would be the purpose and justification of using taxpayer funds to hold the Congressional hearings you’re proposing? Is it really the role of Congress to sponsor forums comparing the tenets of one religion to another, and if so, to what end?

The obvious implication is that you want to promote the image of Islam as inherently violent and a threat our society, despite no such threat occurring from anyone but fringe radicals. This would lead to laws targeting Muslims for no other reasons than their adherence to that faith, and that form of state-sponsored religious discrimination is exactly what the Constitution safeguards against.

Let’s say that such a forum is held outside of Congress or government forums instead, which would be an entirely proper exercise. Can you explain why Orthodox Judaism shouldn’t be included? Specifically, can such a forum address why:

Islam is a threat to society because the Qur’an calls for death in some situations, even as those tenets are ignored in practice by millions of peaceful Muslims worldwide,

But

Orthodox Judaism NOT a threat to society when the Talmud calls for death in over 30 situations, many perfectly legal under civil law, even as those tenets are ignored in practice by millions of peaceful Jews worldwide.

This is not simplistic rhetoric – recent news stories from Israel show the challenges within that society of allowing ultra-orthodox sects of Judaism to practice their faith freely, when those practices include the discrimination and harassment of women that is unacceptable under civil Israeli law.

Reasonable people can distinguish the religious edicts of the past that are unacceptable today, and reconcile their ability to adhere to a faith for its good qualities with disregarding the archaic and barbaric. In a society based on people being innocent until proven guilty, it’s wrong to label the adherents of a entire faith as being guilty of being a threat until proven innocent.

DinsdaleP

“To the end of developing evidence of whether Islam and a Constitutional republic can co-exist—or not.”

“The foundational documents of Islam do indeed make it ‘inherently violent and a threat to our society.’ And indeed to any society other than an Islamic one.”

So set aside the First Amendment, and declare the that any anyone proclaiming adherence to the Islamic faith is a threat to American society? And why, because you and others like you believe that it’s impossible to be a Muslim without literally embracing the parts of the Qur’an that call for violence against non-believers?

There are over 2 million Muslims living peacefully in this country as our fellow citizens, and the only threat they pose is in you imagination. What’s your plan for dealing with this reality – force them to renounce their faith or be deported? For someone trying to compare the Qur’an to Mein Kampf, your rhetoric is starting to sound more like the rhetoric used against the Jews in Germany about 80 years ago.

I’ve also noted how you sidestepped my comments about Orthodox Judaism above. There are over 30 actions that are completely legal in American Society that call for the death penalty under the Talmud. The typical way this is rationalized is that a panel of 23 judges must unanimously agree on the verdict, and eyewitness testimony must be involved. So play a videotape of two men having sexual relations together before a panel of Orthodox Jewish religious judges – what are they obligated to do?

Not a hard prediction – the men in the videotape will not be executed, and there will be an explanation that justifies “the written law of God” as being inapplicable. Now explain why this doesn’t apply to Muslims as well?

DinsdaleP

I’ll answer your hypothetical first – regardless of how offensive is to have a bunch of punks sing Horstwesselleid to be offensive or provocative, they still have the constitutional right to do so. Being an American means tolerating that offensiveness for the greater good of upholding free speech.

As for your responses to my question, let’s clarify that the two men are members of the Orthodox community caught on video, not gentiles. Or the daughter of a Rabbi is caught on tape having premarital relations with an Orthodox lover. These are clear cases where the death penalty is demanded, and the video evidence leaves no room for doubt.

Falling back on the “no true Scotsman” defense is a cop out – since when does being a lawbreaker remove you from the jurisdiction of the law by definition?

I’ve also likely made an error in equivocating the Talmud and the codification of the Old Testament laws, so thank you for that correction. Asked another way, how do any of the Mosaic laws not apply to devout Orthodox Jews, and how are they not bound to enforce the capital laws within their community today?

This is not completely hypothetical, by the way. I’ve been reading about the troubles in Beit Shemesh, Israel, where ultra-Orthodox Jews are attempting to impose their way of life on others around them to the point where civil laws are being violated.

Here’s a good recap for unfamiliar readers: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16342327

The actions of this group are so extreme, fellow Israelis are afraid of their nation becoming like Iran if this movement is not checked (from a quote in the article). These ultra-Orthodox practictioners are not Westoboro Baptist nutcases – they are not doing this for attention, but out of religious zeal. They also make up 10% of the population there, and are growing rapidly due to high birthrates.

This underscores the double-standard in claiming that a Muslim cannot be devout and a non-threat to others. 90% of the Israeli population is able to practice and embrace their religions as they see fit without interfering with the civil lives of each other. The 10% who don’t see themselves as the only ones actually practicing the faith properly, so does that mean the others are Jews in name only? I doubt you’d agree.

Finally, you continue to sidestep the main question that your own comments above invited – what is your end objective in having Congressional hearings to somehow “prove” that Islam is a threat to non-Muslims based on a narrow interpretation of the Qur’an? If you had your way in the elections, with a President Santorum and conservative majorities in both houses of Congress, what would be the implications for the 2 million-plus Muslim citizens of the United States?

This is your cause and concern – where are you going with it?

Nathan Bickel

JT: Re: Your March 8, 2012 at 8:57 am comment,

You also, like “Dinsdale” exaggerate my comments. You, like he, would like to put words in my mouth. I never utilized the description you would like to pin upon me to stereotype me as possessing a Hitler type mass murder mentality.

Please note my comment reply to Dinsdale. Then, perhaps, you can understand (better) my original comment reply to “Tonto USA.”

JT

The fact remains that you said that you agree with the comments of somebody who claimed a group of people different to yourselves should be slaughtered wholesale.

You therefore have no problem with innocent people dying merely because they are different to you. Or rather because you perceive that the actions of a few warrant the destruction of the many.

Tell me again how that comparison doesn’t apply to you?

rpeh

I have to say that I was surprised to read Tonto’s post here, and astonished to see a “Christian pastor” agreeing with it. I can’t believe people really think that calling for a Christian Crusade in reply to an Islamic Jihad is going to lead to any kind of advance.

Look at what happened in Northern Ireland: The British government stated again and again that it wouldn’t deal with terrorists, while all the time it was dealing with terrorists. The result (so far) is that we’ve got almost all the terrorists (from both sides) agreeing to fight at the ballot box rather than with guns. Sure, there are some recidivists but you’ll always find troublemakers in any group.

What Ireland demonstrated is that you can’t beat terrorism with force. It really was true that whenever a terrorist was stuck down, two would step forward to take his place, usually from the ranks of previously moderate people. The only way to use force against an idea is to kill absolutely everyone who believes in that idea. At that point, you’re essentially talking about genocide and I hope even “Toto” and Pastor Bickel will realise that’s going far, far too far.

Before anyone says it, I’m well aware that The Troubles were all the British government’s fault in the first place, so it was our responsibility to sort it out, but that doesn’t change the truth of what I’m saying.

In summary: what you propose is only going to make things worse. In fact, you should really exercise restraint before saying it at all. It’s inflammatory and unnecessary – the modern day equivalent of shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre (or theater, given the context). Calling for violence will only result in… violence. You don’t have to forgive anybody for 9/11, but you can’t hold it against everyone else who looks like the people who carried it out.

Nathan Bickel

rpeh – Re: Your March 8, 2012 at 4:01 pm comment,

You also, like Dinsdale and JT would like to put words in my mouth. You commit the fallacy of logic by “extending the argument.” It is a typical ploy, often used by lib extremists to paint their opposition as if they were unreasonable and in right field. I never stated that I thought a “Christian Crusade” was to oppose Islamic Jihad. You, come up with that on your own and rather stereotype than debate and discuss.

Please, go back and read the totality of my comments. Then, you also, might refrain next time from exaggerating my opinion.

rpeh

Tonto called for wholesale slaughter and you agreed with him. Don’t try to split hair about terms: your comments were disgusting.

Tonto USA

DinsdaleP, I guess you haven’t ever read History….specifically that of WWII. Appeasement and acting nice didn’t work for Hitler. Posturing, threats and even punishing letters, resolutions, embargoes and “surgical strikes” mean nothing at all to a determined enemy because the discomfort of their own populations means nothing at all to them. In WWII after about 40 MILLION dead, Hitler was finally sorted out, killed and the horror of that whole mess was finally able to begin a healing. Now, here we are again. I’m suggesting nip it in the bud with such ferocity that the mere thought of inviting such an onslaught again is out of the question. That would confine the slaughter to a defined area and exclude most peripherals and collateral damages. Hysterical ferocity is kinda motivating too….it certainly give pause to any others who may be considering joining in. Maybe you can understand that and maybe not….if you can’t, just go ahead and admit to being a democrat and I’ll understand that bigotry is in play.

Nathan Bickel

Tonto USA – Re: Your March 8, 2012 at 6:00 pm comment,

I’m sure that your comment thinking mirrors that of such patriots as General George Patton and those American officers who forced German citizens to view the holocaust war camps, as a proper and moral lifetime lesson for them.

Sadly, 9/11 and the memories of Danny Pearl, etc. escape many Americans’ recall. They easily overlook that America is at war with radical Islam. And, war, as such, is described as, “hell.” Its purpose is to eliminate the enemy.

War and its consequences, I think, is a very difficult concept for liberals to grasp as it runs cross current with their worldview philosophy of “multiculturalism,” which states, that all value systems are equal. Hence, liberals invariably will schizophrenically make excuses for Muslim terrorists. According to liberals’ multiculturalism belief, Mohammad Atta was justified in exercising his “equal belief system,” ramming the airplane into one of the twin towers…..

DinsdaleP

Tonto, I’m starting to agree with the opinion that you’re just trolling here, but on the chance that you’re not, the analogy you’re using is wrong.

Hitler commanded a uniformed army that operated (to a certain degree) under the Geneva Conventions. It wasn’t necessary to eradicate every member of its military to end the threat, let alone eradicate every German civilian. When the nation surrendered, the direct threat to our nation did as well.

“Radical Muslims” are an asymmetrical threat – they exist, but they exist in incredibly small numbers compared to the worldwide population of peaceful Muslims, and they don’t operate under any flag or uniform. There’s no government to appease even if we wanted to, and of course we don’t. That also means there’s no government to negotiate a surrender with – that’s the nature of decentralized terrorist groups and cells.

So how do you eliminate the threat? Declare war on a nuclear-armed Pakistan because pockets of radicals hide out in the countryside there? Might as well invade Indonesia, and don’t forget to invade Saudi Arabia too, so the Wahhabi sect of Islam can be purged out of existence there.

Such suggestions are nonsense, just like your suggestion that we could simply “confine the slaughter to a defined area and exclude most peripherals and collateral damages”. Surgical strikes against high-value targets identified by solid intelligence do just that, but you’re pretending that this can be scaled up to a massive level of eradication for convenience.

Serious problems require serious solutions.

Nathan Bickel

DinsdaleP: Re: Your March 9, 2012 at 12:10 am comment insinuating that “TontoUSA” is an online “troll:”

I think that you should be guarded to insinuate that someone is being an online “troll,” especially since, in this thread, you disagree with TontoUSA. You are starting to appear to be needlessly argumentative.

Regarding what you stated about Hitler versus the unconventional terrorists. I never was aware that Hitler had any regard for the Geneva Conventions, especially, in light of his “treatment” of the German Jewish population and other population segments.

But, be that as it may – I think that we’ve all made our points. There is no further need to go on and on.

DinsdaleP

Fair enough about the “trolling” comment. My only other clarification was that the Geneva Convention comment was regarding how the German military operated in general. The genocide of millions was a monstrous crime against humanity that had nothing to do with the rules of warfare.

Anyway, I agree that enough’s been said all around, and I have nothing to add. Have a good weekend.

Trending

29
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x