Poor deluded liberals. They will do anything to advance the position that we’re not at war. They see this struggle between the ideology of freedom and the ideology of tyranny as a simple criminal justice problem. But at least they admit there is such a term as the ‘War on Terror’ except it’s not a war.
No. The left is using this new epiphany as a reason to not support the tactics we are using to fight the cats paws of the Islamo-fascists – the jihadists. Robert Elisberg at the Huffington Post chimes in.
The "War on Terror," of course, is a slogan. Anyone who thinks that the "War on Terror" is a real war with real War Powers mistakes a talking point for the U.S. Constitution. World War II was a real war. Vietnam was a real war. Iraq, too. You bet.
I beg to differ. World War II was a ‘real war’ because we allowed our military to fight in the entire theater of war. Seeking out any and all support for the enemy no matter where he was found. Not so Vietnam or the Iraq War. In Vietnam our military was not allowed to invade the real enemy who supported the Viet Cong and gave them shelter and sanctuary – North Vietnam – and in the current Iraq War the military is not ‘officially’ allowed to enter Iran or Syria to purse and attack insurgent support bases there. The same for Afghanistan. NATO is not allowed to attack the sactuaries in both Pakistan and Iran that support the Taliban or go after OBL in Pakistan.
Mr. Elisberg goes on.
What we are fighting, of course, is to stop any terrorists from killing Americans. It's what we must do, what we're supposed to do. It's what we do for anything critical which would otherwise kill us. But that alone doesn't make it A War.
Correct. A war on terrorists is not a war at all. We need to identify the correct enemy who supports the jihadists but Mr. Elisberg fails to do that. He does pose an interesting question which, being the liberal that he is, can’t answer – and is afraid to answer because he has to identify the real enemy. That would not be politically correct.
When the "War on Terror" is over, who will be the person to surrender to us? What are the terms of peace we'll get the enemy to sign?
Perhaps if you understood a recent quote by President Bush, it might help you understand who we are fighting and who should surrender to us and achieve final victory.
“We have learned that (our enemies) are evil and kill without mercy—but not without purpose. We have learned that they form a global network of extremists who are driven by a perverted vision of Islam. ... And we have learned that their goal is to build a radical Islamic empire.”
The enemy, Mr. Elisberg, is any country, organization, group or individual that supports the Islamic agenda of recreating the Islamic Empire, re-establishing the Caliphate, and imposing Sharia law upon the non-Muslim world. It’s any organization, group or individual that seeks to impose the Islamic agenda on the non-Muslim world through the tactics of intimidation, infiltration, and disinformation.
That’s the enemy Mr. Elisberg. Those should be the focus of our ‘war’. If not. If we don’t take seriously the Islamic plan for world domination that which the terrorists are only the tip of the iceberg, you will have your ‘real’ war with millions of Muslim and non-Muslim dead as the result.
Did you ever think that this may be the beginning of a major struggle of Islam against itself? Don't forget, those Shiite and Sunni death squads are piling up each other's bodies at a record rate.
QuestionItNow - Still in Iraq
Post a Comment