The Serial Killer in Afghanistan

The Serial Killer in Afghanistan

Postby Brian » Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:58 pm

So what does everyone think of this person? My personal opinion is we should return him to Afghanistan to face the villagers whose family members he killed.

(I don't much care how many good deeds he did beforehand. Hitler had a dog that he loved, too.)

Story on CNN
"I guess the winter makes you laugh a little slower
Makes you talk a little lower
About the things you could not show her."

-- Counting Crows, "A Long December"
User avatar
Brian
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:02 pm

Re: The Serial Killer in Afghanistan

Postby Quicksilver » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:43 pm

He snapped after witnessing too much, and having a friend's leg blown off by an IED. How about those who place the IEDs that also kill civilians and children, or the suicide bombers who do the same, but they can't be revenged upon too easily. Serial killers? Afghanistan is full of them.
Personally, I don't think we should have ever sent troops there, making the same mistake the Soviets made. The known terrorist sites targeted with cruise missiles of little effect by Clinton in '93, and any other sites known to train and harbor terrorists, should have been nuked on 9-11 and 12 , 2001. Places that had cheering crowds of terrorist supporters should also have been nuked.
The majority of the world would have been shocked , but done nothing, because it was retaliation for an attack, war not started by the US. Ground troops should have been put on the Mexican border instead, to fight the de facto long time invasion of millions from Mexico, that has now killed around 100K Americans with little fanfare or publicizing, because it was slower, and by several means (murders, ODs, various diseases brought in, drunken driving, negligent homicides, etc).
Borders closed, and Americans allowed to tear down mosques, moslems deported. None of their kill cult ilk should ever have been allowed in the USA. Madison said, in his papers on the Constitution that freedom of religion was not meant to include mohammedanism or other Eastern religions. At that time, the moslem religion had declared holy war against the US and never rescinded anything said in their book about killing all infidels or enslaving them and making the whole world an islamic caliphate under Sharia law.
See the White Roses links to educate yourself on just what a horrible thing islam truly is. Ignorance has prevailed since the days of Madison and Jefferson. I remember the chicken Cassius Clay turning into Mohammed Ali and refusing the draft saying the BS that islam was a religion of peace. Taqiyya makes it so liberal ignoramuses fall for it, much to the moslem glee.
I am surprised there aren't more who have opened up on them after experiencing their atrocities. Islam is like a disease and should have been contained to the Middle East. Their main method of conquest now is through taqiyya with immigration and force breeding their females to have 8 kids to eventually outnumber their hosts. :angryfire:
:guitar1: :rockon: :uzi:
Before every action and decision think of the consequences 7 generations into the future....Ute Rule of Life
Quicksilver
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 5:16 pm

Re: The Serial Killer in Afghanistan

Postby Brian » Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:32 pm

Quicksilver wrote:He snapped after witnessing too much, and having a friend's leg blown off by an IED.


Not an excuse, as far as I'm concerned. It's war. People see and experience horrible things during war, but soldiers aren't supposed to behave the way he behaved.

Quicksilver wrote:How about those who place the IEDs that also kill civilians and children, or the suicide bombers who do the same, but they can't be revenged upon too easily. Serial killers? Afghanistan is full of them.


That's the people we're fighting against. It's not supposed to be us doing that kind of thing. And certainly not against civilian populations that have nothing to do with the Taliban. I have no problem meting out the most horrible retribution possible against the people attacking us, but not against innocents sleeping. That's just evil. There's no other way to say it.

Quicksilver wrote:Personally, I don't think we should have ever sent troops there, making the same mistake the Soviets made.


It's not exactly the same mistake the Soviets made. The Soviets wanted to stay there and make it Soviet territory. No one, to the best of my knowledge, is talking about creating Arkansastan.

Quicksilver wrote:The known terrorist sites targeted with cruise missiles of little effect by Clinton in '93, and any other sites known to train and harbor terrorists, should have been nuked on 9-11 and 12 , 2001. Places that had cheering crowds of terrorist supporters should also have been nuked.


Nukes have been off the table since '45. Don't kid yourself. Sure, we have lots of nukes, but it's psychological rather than tactical, at this point. No one who's looked at a map wants to use nukes. There's a reason why they call it "Mutually Assured Destruction".

Quicksilver wrote:The majority of the world would have been shocked , but done nothing, because it was retaliation for an attack, war not started by the US.


There is zero chance that the rest of the world would have been that accommodating. At the very least (even not considering what an utter breach of humanity such an attack would be), there would be treaty obligations that countries would have to uphold, and treaty obligations that we would violate with such an act. It would be suicide -- murder-suicide, in fact, since we'd take the rest of the world with us.

Quicksilver wrote:Ground troops should have been put on the Mexican border instead, to fight the de facto long time invasion of millions from Mexico, that has now killed around 100K Americans with little fanfare or publicizing, because it was slower, and by several means (murders, ODs, various diseases brought in, drunken driving, negligent homicides, etc).


Much more needs to be done by the federal government concerning illegal immigration. No argument there.

Quicksilver wrote:Borders closed, and Americans allowed to tear down mosques, moslems deported. None of their kill cult ilk should ever have been allowed in the USA. Madison said, in his papers on the Constitution that freedom of religion was not meant to include mohammedanism or other Eastern religions.


Do you have a citation for that? We had a treaty with Muslims at the time when Madison was alive (Tripoli, I believe). My sense of things is that if the First Amendment wasn't meant to include Islam (or any other religion) they could've very well specified Christianity. I think the Constitution speaks for itself on that point.

As for taqiyya, I think it means something a little different from what you think it means. Everything I've been able to find online says that taqiyya is a dispensation that allows Muslims to conceal their religion when they're under persecution.

Link 1

016:106 Yusuf Ali): Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.


Link 2

Now, it seems to me that someone on the battlefield would be free to lie about their faith (because, hey, that's war) but that doesn't extend to all Muslims. No compulsion is against Muslims living peacefully in the U.S. (In fact, that's kind of the point of the First Amendment.)
"I guess the winter makes you laugh a little slower
Makes you talk a little lower
About the things you could not show her."

-- Counting Crows, "A Long December"
User avatar
Brian
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:02 pm

Re: The Serial Killer in Afghanistan

Postby sledge » Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:54 am

The Soldier just snapped don't they call it Posttraumatic stress disorder? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttrauma ... s_disorder

Still does not excuse what the soldier has committed. Last Year some rogue afghan soldier went berserk and killed 2 Aussie soldiers, one officer and they were hunting the soldier down. Not sure if the caught him yet?
Image
[b]DOCTOR WHO 5OTH ANNIVERSARY 1963 - 2013[/b]
User avatar
sledge
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:18 am

Re: The Serial Killer in Afghanistan

Postby Brian » Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:24 am

sledge wrote:The Soldier just snapped don't they call it Posttraumatic stress disorder? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttrauma ... s_disorder

Still does not excuse what the soldier has committed. Last Year some rogue afghan soldier went berserk and killed 2 Aussie soldiers, one officer and they were hunting the soldier down. Not sure if the caught him yet?


I hadn't heard about the Aussie solder, Sledge. I hope they bring him to justice.

I don't think PTSD is a viable defense. Unfortunately, lots of soldiers have PTSD. They don't go out and kill innocent people because of it. There's something more going on here.
"I guess the winter makes you laugh a little slower
Makes you talk a little lower
About the things you could not show her."

-- Counting Crows, "A Long December"
User avatar
Brian
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:02 pm

Re: The Serial Killer in Afghanistan

Postby Quicksilver » Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:33 pm

Brian wrote:
Quicksilver wrote:He snapped after witnessing too much, and having a friend's leg blown off by an IED.


Not an excuse, as far as I'm concerned. It's war. People see and experience horrible things during war, but soldiers aren't supposed to behave the way he behaved.
}}}kind of BS that one side has to be "civilized" while the other doesn't{{{

Quicksilver wrote:How about those who place the IEDs that also kill civilians and children, or the suicide bombers who do the same, but they can't be revenged upon too easily. Serial killers? Afghanistan is full of them.


That's the people we're fighting against. It's not supposed to be us doing that kind of thing. And certainly not against civilian populations that have nothing to do with the Taliban. I have no problem meting out the most horrible retribution possible against the people attacking us, but not against innocents sleeping. That's just evil. There's no other way to say it.
}}}But, like you said, that's war{{{

Quicksilver wrote:Personally, I don't think we should have ever sent troops there, making the same mistake the Soviets made.


It's not exactly the same mistake the Soviets made. The Soviets wanted to stay there and make it Soviet territory. No one, to the best of my knowledge, is talking about creating Arkansastan.
}}}If not the same, similar, staying for a long period{{{

Quicksilver wrote:The known terrorist sites targeted with cruise missiles of little effect by Clinton in '93, and any other sites known to train and harbor terrorists, should have been nuked on 9-11 and 12 , 2001. Places that had cheering crowds of terrorist supporters should also have been nuked.


Nukes have been off the table since '45. Don't kid yourself. Sure, we have lots of nukes, but it's psychological rather than tactical, at this point. No one who's looked at a map wants to use nukes. There's a reason why they call it "Mutually Assured Destruction".
}}}That is from the Soviet Era, not 2001. Maybe some countries would have made overtures condemning it, but they would have faced the idea of encouraging islamic holy war. A dozen or so would not have caused worldwide contamination problems{{{

Quicksilver wrote:The majority of the world would have been shocked , but done nothing, because it was retaliation for an attack, war not started by the US.


There is zero chance that the rest of the world would have been that accommodating. At the very least (even not considering what an utter breach of humanity such an attack would be), there would be treaty obligations that countries would have to uphold, and treaty obligations that we would violate with such an act. It would be suicide -- murder-suicide, in fact, since we'd take the rest of the world with us.
}}}I disagree, many would have been on our side. Probably even Russia. The US, with a limited strike would not have caused worldwide catastrophe. That would take around 1,000 warheads. It wouldn't have been any more inhumane than the 9-11 attacks on us. It would have been much cheaper in money and American lives, too. It is a historical fact that attacked countries are approved to retaliate in equal or greater force, at least by their friends.{{{{

Quicksilver wrote:Ground troops should have been put on the Mexican border instead, to fight the de facto long time invasion of millions from Mexico, that has now killed around 100K Americans with little fanfare or publicizing, because it was slower, and by several means (murders, ODs, various diseases brought in, drunken driving, negligent homicides, etc).


Much more needs to be done by the federal government concerning illegal immigration. No argument there.
}}}Right, Mexico has invaded us, and several million Americans are guilty of felony encouragement and owe $5K fines for each illegal, and the illegals owe fines for illegal entry, destruction and littering of property, and felony phony IDs. The total owed is a hundred or more times the entire National Debt!{{{{

Quicksilver wrote:Borders closed, and Americans allowed to tear down mosques, moslems deported. None of their kill cult ilk should ever have been allowed in the USA. Madison said, in his papers on the Constitution that freedom of religion was not meant to include mohammedanism or other Eastern religions.


Do you have a citation for that? We had a treaty with Muslims at the time when Madison was alive (Tripoli, I believe). My sense of things is that if the First Amendment wasn't meant to include Islam (or any other religion) they could've very well specified Christianity. I think the Constitution speaks for itself on that point.
}}}They had no clue that the cancer would spread here. Madison's Papers exist as I said and are difficult to find, probably purposely, by islamic encouragers{{{

As for taqiyya, I think it means something a little different from what you think it means. Everything I've been able to find online says that taqiyya is a dispensation that allows Muslims to conceal their religion when they're under persecution.
}}}What you think is wrong----Taqiyya — Religious Deception
Monday

The following is a chapter of Islam 101:

Due to the state of war between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb, ruses of war, i.e., systematic lying to the infidel, must be considered part and parcel of Islamic tactics. The parroting by Muslim organizations throughout dar al-harb that "Islam is a religion of peace," or that the origins of Muslim violence lie in the unbalanced psyches of particular individual "fanatics," must be considered as disinformation intended to induce the infidel world to let down its guard.

Of course, individual Muslims may genuinely regard their religion as "peaceful" — but only insofar as they are ignorant of its true teachings, or in the sense of the Egyptian theorist Sayyid Qutb, who posited in his Islam and Universal Peace that true peace would prevail in the world just as soon as Islam had conquered it.

A telling point is that, while Muslims who present their religion as peaceful abound throughout dar al-harb, they are nearly non-existent in dar al-Islam. A Muslim apostate once suggested to me a litmus test for Westerners who believe that Islam is a religion of "peace" and "tolerance": try making that point on a street corner in Ramallah, or Riyadh, or Islamabad, or anywhere in the Muslim world. He assured me you wouldn't live five minutes.

{A} problem concerning law and order {with respect to Muslims in dar al-harb} arises from an ancient Islamic legal principle — that of taqiyya, a word the root meaning of which is "to remain faithful" but which in effect means "dissimulation." It has full Quranic authority (3:28 and 16:106) and allows the Muslim to conform outwardly to the requirements of unislamic or non-Islamic government, while inwardly "remaining faithful" to whatever he conceives to be proper Islam, while waiting for the tide to turn. (Hiskett, Some to Mecca Turn to Pray, 101.)

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 269; Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "War is deceit."

Historically, examples of taqiyya include permission to renounce Islam itself in order to save one's neck or ingratiate oneself with an enemy.

It is not hard to see that the implications of taqiyya are insidious in the extreme: they essentially render negotiated settlement — and, indeed, all veracious communication between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb — impossible. It should not, however, be surprising that a party to a war should seek to mislead the other about its means and intentions.{{{{


Now, it seems to me that someone on the battlefield would be free to lie about their faith (because, hey, that's war) but that doesn't extend to all Muslims. No compulsion is against Muslims living peacefully in the U.S. (In fact, that's kind of the point of the First Amendment.)
BS, see above. Just because they appear peaceful at this time does not mean they will not stab you in the back when the time is right. They are essentially enemies living in our midst, as are the reconquista mexicans, and communists. All "Trojan Horses" best destroyed before they can do harm. IMHO.
Before every action and decision think of the consequences 7 generations into the future....Ute Rule of Life
Quicksilver
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 5:16 pm


Return to Political Matters

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron