Osama Bin Laden Is Dead

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Isn't enough. As long as their are people who are willing to take up arms against the United States I will have no problem with a 1000 to one kill ratio or higher.

---

How does that make you different from them who think it's OK to knock down some towers and kill few thousand Americans for every Muslim the Americans kill in the Middle East?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Isn't enough. As long as their are people who are willing to take up arms against the United States I will have no problem with a 1000 to one kill ratio or higher.

---

Given that, at what point would you deem the kill ratio to be too high? And where would you draw the line? Would you, for instance, advocate the killing of those who consider a '1000 to one' kill ratio unacceptable, on the grounds that their unduly liberal attitudes pose a threat to the security of the USA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

America has already taken back "An eye for an eye" between sixteen and twenty times over. There doesn't need to be anymore blood payment. Getting that blood payment has cost ten years and driven the United States' economy and reputation into the ground.

The best thing at this point would be to declare the books closed on this forever and move on.

---

Not really. I actually feel sorry for the stupid *******s that go getting themselves killed, either by US bombs or by blowing themselves up.
One could say it is their own fault for being so stupid,........but.......

No I think leaders in a war should always be the first to die; that would do more to keep peace than anything else.

why do you think we did not have a thermonuke dance with the ole soviets????

Yeah, all those leaders were so worried over how many millions might die???? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


they knew they would be among the first to die and nobody would be left to go around singing hail to the chief.

well, making the leaders to be the first to die, would be a great step towards world peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Given that, at what point would you deem the kill ratio to be too high? And where would you draw the line? Would you, for instance, advocate the killing of those who consider a '1000 to one' kill ratio unacceptable, on the grounds that their unduly liberal attitudes pose a threat to the security of the USA?

---

IF every known member of those considered to be THE enemy were dead, but one kills a few outsiders just to be sure, would be considered going too far; whereas to exterminate the enemy- would be ideal.

This article was published shortly before Sept. 11, 2001--http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/10/op...st-threat.html

Krauthammer's editorial today says that the same asinine attitude is being verbalized by many liberals again now that Osama is dead.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

At the same time with Osama dead- I wonder how proud this makes Obama of his meddling in the affairs of Muslim countries where he and his regime have no business interfering. http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/1...-in-west-cairo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

IF every known member of those considered to be THE enemy were dead, but one kills a few outsiders just to be sure, would be considered going too far; whereas to exterminate the enemy- would be ideal.

---

In reality you create more enemies for every outsider killed.

Well I am not going to read 19 pages of you guys fighting. I am glad he is dead, I think the Pakistani's knew he was there the whole time and were harbouring him, and are smart enough to now look the other way. Was Obama right to do what he did? That one is thorny, but hey, you play the game of poking the bull, the bull will get even. If Obama didn't do it, someone would have in time figured him out. The US had the balls to say "yes it was us"...so right or wrong, at least they are not hiding behind some fiction they didn't do it.

Fair trail for a man who would have your throat slit for being a non Muslim? No...but he isn't into fair. He got what everyone of these mutts claims to want, a trip to paradise. Whether he did or not is for powers beyond this earth, but I suspect Hell just got more interesting...no virgins there with honey..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

How does that make you different from them who think it's OK to knock down some towers and kill few thousand Americans for every Muslim the Americans kill in the Middle East?

---

Only you would make 3000 INNOCENT VICTIMS the same as those who actively attack the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Given that, at what point would you deem the kill ratio to be too high? And where would you draw the line? Would you, for instance, advocate the killing of those who consider a '1000 to one' kill ratio unacceptable, on the grounds that their unduly liberal attitudes pose a threat to the security of the USA?

---

If it would save the life of even 1 US citizen there is no number that is too high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Only you would make 3000 INNOCENT VICTIMS the same as those who actively attack the United States.

---

Between 14,000-34,000 civilians have been killed because of attacks in Afghanistan. They're equally as innocent as the 3000 who died in New York.

But you are correct. Everyone who has died in Afghanistan deserved to die because they're scum. From the people just going about their daily business to the evil evil children who were going to school. Scum scum scum. Kill all of them, they deserve it, don't they.