Al-Baghdadi Dies "Whimpering, Crying, Screaming"

[Bobby]

I have no sympathy for terrorists. None nada zippo zilch.
Were you upset when Baghdadi blew himself and 2 kids up, Brian? Did you blame Trump?

Brian has a decision to make:

[The4thEstate]

This all harks back to Guantanamo Bay and the use of Torture by the Americans to interrogate prisoners. We all saw what damage that did to the West's cause when it was revealed to the world. The majority of Americans recoiled from that, as did civilised people in the world. Nothing was gained from it, it was not warranted, it achieved nothing except to satisfy the barbarians who were in charge at that point in time.

Actually, it achieved plenty, including pinpointing the location of Osama bin Laden.

So what if KSM, the architect of 9/11, had to suck a little water in the process? I suspect he suffered a lot less than the 3,000 people he helped massacre.

The fact that you and your fellow bleeding hearts started clutching your pearls over a little harsh interrogation of three terrorist leaders is irrelevant, not to mention silly.

I mean, think about your stance here: You're perfectly OK with blasting enemy troops into microparticles on the battlefield, but if you catch one of their leaders alive, you feel obligated to serve him tea and crumpets and leave a mint on his pillow.

Not me. Not when he possesses the kind of knowledge that can stop future terrorist attacks before they ever happen ... and locate other high-value targets. Would you really feel better seeing your own family and friends perforated by a jihadist's bullets than subject one of his commanders to a date with a dunk tank?

And you say I'm the one who doesn't know how to fight a war ...

[Valkie]

brian ross wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:52 pm
This all harks back to Guantanamo Bay and the use of Torture by the Americans to interrogate prisoners. We all saw what damage that did to the West's cause when it was revealed to the world. The majority of Americans recoiled from that, as did civilised people in the world. Nothing was gained from it, it was not warranted, it achieved nothing except to satisfy the barbarians who were in charge at that point in time.

And yet there was no backlash against the CULT of DEATH who's general operating principle is to
Torture prisoners and innocents
Murder any not of the CULT
Chop off heads for fun and entertainment.

Yeah right, torturing terrorists in gitmo was a real problem.

Bring back 14th century tortures for all terrorists , suspected terrorists and sychophant apologists.

[Bogan]

This is classic Brian Ross, 4E.

Brian has a compulsive psychological need to think that he is morally superior to his opponents. So his default position is to always seize the moral high ground and pretend to be morally superior. But Brian is a political Elmer Gantry who routinely violates the very moral sacred principles that he demands his opponents adhere to. It is all just an act.

Briney wrote

In your opinion and in the opinion of bogan, perhaps.

However a race to the bottom invariably ends up with everybody in the gutter. All you've done is forfeit any claim to being morally superior to your enemy. Unless you actually demonstrate that you are morally superior, any such claim is fruitless.

See his supposed obsession with being "morally superior?" And this from a supposed "anti racist" who has been caught making racist remarks about white people and demanding that individuals must not be judged by their group associations. Unless, of course, they are individuals from groups that Brian despises. The individuals from groups that Brian despises are exceptions to his carved in stone moral principles. And then he comes out with doozies like this which you might remember? ....

Brian Ross wrote

As usual, FE you appear to believe in US exceptionalism. The US can never be judged as harshly as it judges others. Sorry, I apply the same rules to all.

TO everybody but himself, and his commie and Muslim terrorist mates.

Briney wrote

If you look at the last century, the reason why the Allies were able to claim they were morally superior to first the Central Powers and then later the Axis was because they could prove it. They didn't massacre prisoners willy-nilly. They didn't organise extermination camps. The Central Powers and the Axis did.

The allies killed millions of German and Japanese civilians through the terror bombing of cities. We justified it on the quite reasonable grounds that the Japs and Germans were the ones who instigated the terror bombing of cities as a justifiable act of war in the first place. The Germans in particular were horrified when the British erected a statue to "Bomber" Harris, who they consider to be a war criminal. But we don't care about that now because our side won, and that is really all that matters.

Briney wrote

All I can say is that I am glad that you are not in charge of military strategy, 4E. You would get more of your own men killed than you would the enemy.

One reason why the British Army lost almost every battle it ever fought for 200 years was because it's upper officer ranks were infested with idiots who had Absolutist personalities like Brian Ross. Convinced that they were a military caste with almost supernatural powers of military genius, and demanding that their troops fight "by the (out of date) book", these fools were constantly out manoeuvred by their enemies, many of whom were illiterate barbarians. Brian has a moral book which he demands everybody else abide by, which he does not do himself.

He refuses to even consider that there is time to play dirty, especially when dealing with an enemy who has no qualms at all of planting bombs among innocent civilian shoppers, bombing airliners out of the sky, releasing sarin gas in underground railways carriages, cutting the throats of innocent civilian hostages, throwing acid in women's faces, or shooting schoolgirls in the head. Perhaps when his Muzzie mates get hold of a nuclear weapon and detonate it in a western city, he and his moral posturing idiot mates might grow a brain?

I do not posses an Absolutist mindset like Brian, with an ability to violate my own stated moral principles whenever it is convenient, without recognising that I am even doing it. I am an ordinary man who prefers to fight clean in a fair stand up fight, but who knows that there is a time to fight dirty when fighting a totally contemptible, outright evil, and ruthless opponent, who kills innocents in order to promote his backward and medieval ideology.

With Brian in charge of Allied military units, our prospects for victory would be as bad as the British Army in Singapore under that prize idiot General Percival. Percival refused to violate Thailand's neutrality to defend the only possible beach that the Japanese could use to invade Malaya. What a wonderful moral position. Japanese General Yamashita was not that stupid and he simply violated Thailand's neutrality and he won.

Maybe Brian is related to Percival?

[Redneck]

This is classic Brian Ross, 4E.

Brian has a compulsive psychological need to think that he is morally superior to his opponents. So his default position is to always seize the moral high ground and pretend to be morally superior. But Brian is a political Elmer Gantry who routinely violates the very moral sacred principles that he demands his opponents adhere to. It is all just an act.

Briney wrote

In your opinion and in the opinion of bogan, perhaps.

However a race to the bottom invariably ends up with everybody in the gutter. All you've done is forfeit any claim to being morally superior to your enemy. Unless you actually demonstrate that you are morally superior, any such claim is fruitless.

See his supposed obsession with being "morally superior?" And this from a supposed "anti racist" who has been caught making racist remarks about white people and demanding that individuals must not be judged by their group associations. Unless, of course, they are individuals from groups that Brian despises. The individuals from groups that Brian despises are exceptions to his carved in stone moral principles. And then he comes out with doozies like this which you might remember? ....

Brian Ross wrote

As usual, FE you appear to believe in US exceptionalism. The US can never be judged as harshly as it judges others. Sorry, I apply the same rules to all.

TO everybody but himself, and his commie and Muslim terrorist mates.

Briney wrote

If you look at the last century, the reason why the Allies were able to claim they were morally superior to first the Central Powers and then later the Axis was because they could prove it. They didn't massacre prisoners willy-nilly. They didn't organise extermination camps. The Central Powers and the Axis did.

The allies killed millions of German and Japanese civilians through the terror bombing of cities. We justified it on the quite reasonable grounds that the Japs and Germans were the ones who instigated the terror bombing of cities as a justifiable act of war in the first place. The Germans in particular were horrified when the British erected a statue to "Bomber" Harris, who they consider to be a war criminal. But we don't care about that now because our side won, and that is really all that matters.

Briney wrote

All I can say is that I am glad that you are not in charge of military strategy, 4E. You would get more of your own men killed than you would the enemy.

One reason why the British Army lost almost every battle it ever fought for 200 years was because it's upper officer ranks were infested with idiots who had Absolutist personalities like Brian Ross. Convinced that they were a military caste with almost supernatural powers of military genius, and demanding that their troops fight "by the (out of date) book", these fools were constantly out manoeuvred by their enemies, many of whom were illiterate barbarians. Brian has a moral book which he demands everybody else abide by, which he does not do himself.

He refuses to even consider that there is time to play dirty, especially when dealing with an enemy who has no qualms at all of planting bombs among innocent civilian shoppers, bombing airliners out of the sky, releasing sarin gas in underground railways carriages, cutting the throats of innocent civilian hostages, throwing acid in women's faces, or shooting schoolgirls in the head. Perhaps when his Muzzie mates get hold of a nuclear weapon and detonate it in a western city, he and his moral posturing idiot mates might grow a brain?

I do not posses an Absolutist mindset like Brian, with an ability to violate my own stated moral principles whenever it is convenient, without recognising that I am even doing it. I am an ordinary man who prefers to fight clean in a fair stand up fight, but who knows that there is a time to fight dirty when fighting a totally contemptible, outright evil, and ruthless opponent, who kills innocents in order to promote his backward and medieval ideology.

With Brian in charge of Allied military units, our prospects for victory would be as bad as the British Army in Singapore under that prize idiot General Percival. Percival refused to violate Thailand's neutrality to defend the only possible beach that the Japanese could use to invade Malaya. What a wonderful moral position. Japanese General Yamashita was not that stupid and he simply violated Thailand's neutrality and he won.

Maybe Brian is related to Percival?

Good post!

[Bogan]

Q. How do you know a dead Allied soldier in Afghanistan is a German?
A. He is the one holding the 100mm thick "Rules of Engagement" book.

[Valkie]

This is classic Brian Ross, 4E.

Brian has a compulsive psychological need to think that he is morally superior to his opponents. So his default position is to always seize the moral high ground and pretend to be morally superior. But Brian is a political Elmer Gantry who routinely violates the very moral sacred principles that he demands his opponents adhere to. It is all just an act.

Briney wrote

In your opinion and in the opinion of bogan, perhaps.

However a race to the bottom invariably ends up with everybody in the gutter. All you've done is forfeit any claim to being morally superior to your enemy. Unless you actually demonstrate that you are morally superior, any such claim is fruitless.

See his supposed obsession with being "morally superior?" And this from a supposed "anti racist" who has been caught making racist remarks about white people and demanding that individuals must not be judged by their group associations. Unless, of course, they are individuals from groups that Brian despises. The individuals from groups that Brian despises are exceptions to his carved in stone moral principles. And then he comes out with doozies like this which you might remember? ....

Brian Ross wrote

As usual, FE you appear to believe in US exceptionalism. The US can never be judged as harshly as it judges others. Sorry, I apply the same rules to all.

TO everybody but himself, and his commie and Muslim terrorist mates.

Briney wrote

If you look at the last century, the reason why the Allies were able to claim they were morally superior to first the Central Powers and then later the Axis was because they could prove it. They didn't massacre prisoners willy-nilly. They didn't organise extermination camps. The Central Powers and the Axis did.

The allies killed millions of German and Japanese civilians through the terror bombing of cities. We justified it on the quite reasonable grounds that the Japs and Germans were the ones who instigated the terror bombing of cities as a justifiable act of war in the first place. The Germans in particular were horrified when the British erected a statue to "Bomber" Harris, who they consider to be a war criminal. But we don't care about that now because our side won, and that is really all that matters.

Briney wrote

All I can say is that I am glad that you are not in charge of military strategy, 4E. You would get more of your own men killed than you would the enemy.

One reason why the British Army lost almost every battle it ever fought for 200 years was because it's upper officer ranks were infested with idiots who had Absolutist personalities like Brian Ross. Convinced that they were a military caste with almost supernatural powers of military genius, and demanding that their troops fight "by the (out of date) book", these fools were constantly out manoeuvred by their enemies, many of whom were illiterate barbarians. Brian has a moral book which he demands everybody else abide by, which he does not do himself.

He refuses to even consider that there is time to play dirty, especially when dealing with an enemy who has no qualms at all of planting bombs among innocent civilian shoppers, bombing airliners out of the sky, releasing sarin gas in underground railways carriages, cutting the throats of innocent civilian hostages, throwing acid in women's faces, or shooting schoolgirls in the head. Perhaps when his Muzzie mates get hold of a nuclear weapon and detonate it in a western city, he and his moral posturing idiot mates might grow a brain?

I do not posses an Absolutist mindset like Brian, with an ability to violate my own stated moral principles whenever it is convenient, without recognising that I am even doing it. I am an ordinary man who prefers to fight clean in a fair stand up fight, but who knows that there is a time to fight dirty when fighting a totally contemptible, outright evil, and ruthless opponent, who kills innocents in order to promote his backward and medieval ideology.

With Brian in charge of Allied military units, our prospects for victory would be as bad as the British Army in Singapore under that prize idiot General Percival. Percival refused to violate Thailand's neutrality to defend the only possible beach that the Japanese could use to invade Malaya. What a wonderful moral position. Japanese General Yamashita was not that stupid and he simply violated Thailand's neutrality and he won.

Maybe Brian is related to Percival?

Good, accurate and concise post.

[The4thEstate]

This is classic Brian Ross, 4E.

Brian has a compulsive psychological need to think that he is morally superior to his opponents. So his default position is to always seize the moral high ground and pretend to be morally superior. But Brian is a political Elmer Gantry who routinely violates the very moral sacred principles that he demands his opponents adhere to. It is all just an act.

Well, I have a standard answer for him and any other lefties who insist that we fight wars by the Marquess of Queensberry rules -- and that we have to demonstrate our moral superiority because "if we don't, we're no better than they are."

Who's keeping score?

Seriously ... whom exactly are we trying to impress by following all those supposedly important rules of engagement? And who's going to do anything about it if they don't like the way we fight wars?

Inconsistencies abound. For instance, we had no qualms about shooting down the airplane carrying Admiral Yamamoto during World War II. So let me get this straight: It was OK to kill him without a lawyer or a trial, but it would have been immoral to have captured him alive and subjected him to harsh interrogation?

Or are we required to try to catch every enemy leader alive, such as Osama bin Laden, so we can do the right thing and put them on trial ... even if we have to sacrifice some of our best special ops personnel in the process?

See, I always thought it would be worse if we captured bin Laden alive, because aside from any intelligence we might have extracted from him, we'd have faced the constant possibility of terrorism aimed at making us release him. Imagine you're the president of the U.S., and some jihadist captures an American school bus at gunpoint and threatens to start killing children one at a time unless we release bin Laden immediately. That's why we needed to punch his ticket to 72 Virgin Street.

And I just can't bring myself to shed any tears for the treatment that the architect of 9/11 received at Gitmo. I have more concern for the way stray animals are treated at municipal animal shelters.

Well stated post, by the way.

[Fred]

I have no sympathy for terrorists. None nada zippo zilch. Were you upset when Baghdadi blew himself and 2 kids up, Brian? Did you blame Trump?

I have no sympathy either. However, I don't consider gloating over killing people (as the terrorists do themselves) as being anything good. He should have simply reported and praised the men who carried out his orders (of the orders of their superiors) on carrying out a successful operation carried out under his Presidency.


I think his words and actions on the matter was a little off, however, I have to agree with the methodology of the actions.

[Black Orchid]

I have no sympathy for terrorists. None nada zippo zilch. Were you upset when Baghdadi blew himself and 2 kids up, Brian? Did you blame Trump?

I have no sympathy either. However, I don't consider gloating over killing people (as the terrorists do themselves) as being anything good. He should have simply reported and praised the men who carried out his orders (of the orders of their superiors) on carrying out a successful operation carried out under his Presidency.


I think his words and actions on the matter was a little off, however, I have to agree with the methodology of the actions.

I agree, but perhaps there was a purpose behind it. Maybe it will trigger other crazies lined up to take his place into acting in a reactive way whereby more intelligence can be appropriated and acted upon. Who knows?

I never particularly liked Trump and probably would not have voted for him but I hate the methodology of the Democrats even more who have been trying to impeach him from the get go. Like most 'progressives' they try to shut down everything they don't like and behave like hysterical toddlers.

He's been under more loony and unfounded attack than any other President in history from the first day he took office and yet has still been achieving great things for the American people and trying to make good on the promises he was elected on, despite the obsessive efforts of the Democrat clowns.

They should be trying to beat him legitimately, which they know they cannot, instead of this ridiculous and costly shit storm they thrive in and which is dividing the country.

So, if I was an American, and didn't vote for him in 2016 I would certainly be now voting for him in 2020 and I think a lot of people feel the same way.