A Perfect Example why America will lose the war on terror....

Obviously you haven't read the story, or the posts by Ladyeagle. But don't let ignorance keep you from speaking out.

It wasn't a ham sandwich that was left on a table. It was a large piece of ham that was intentionally placed in the middle of the Somali students while a large number of other students looked on, apparently to see what the reaction would be.

And many here, as amazing and un-Christlike as it appears, seem to think that is exactly the way Somali CHILDREN should expect to be treated when they are in the USA.

Again, hate to keep bringing up facts, the debate here has not been about hate crimes. No one has said this should be treated as a hate crime. The debate centers on this quote from LadyEagle, "Throwing a ham sandwich on a table in a cafeteria is not a big deal."

To which I, and a few others, say that is dead wrong.

 

Of course...the ad hominem...the surrender of the man with no argument who has nothing left but personal attacks.

Just for the record, shall we count you among those who say it is fine to bully and intimidate 12 y.o. children because of their religion, rather than show God's love and grace?

 

Baloney, and your military resume is not impressive. So what, who didnt serve during that era? I would even say others were serving in another war while you were still in school, one much more vicious than Desert Storm, (not dessert), and the Navy, oh wow, how terrifying.

Well, Ill let you go for now. You better get on that guitar so you can pluck out another sermon. Oh and thanks, but I will send my 10 yo grandson to pick up your kumbya. He does my light work.

 

Would you feel the same way if it was someone making fun of a Christian because of his religion?

 

Lots of people make fun of Christians - some of them do it for entertainment - and, although we don't like it, we don't charge them with "hate crimes".

 

What is your military resume?

 

Everyone who has served honorably in any of the services or any of the branches or at any time can be proud of whatever they did towards meeting the needs of our nation and can also consider themselves blessed to be able to talk about it now because many others can not having given more than any of us. We should each respect the contributions of the other. If someone chooses to mention some details of their own service there's no harm in it. Likewise, if another chooses to remain silent in the matter there's no harm in that either. Let's please not get into a destructive challenge or critique of each other's military service least we're found to be boasting or are humbled or both. Let's be grateful for all and pray that the God almighty will protect those now serving and, if it be His will, bring about a complete victory for our nation so that many more can be spared from the consequences of war.

 

More than the one I that was given to me in a rebuttal post.

 

You are right, and I choose to keep mine quiet. Its not something I dwell on, believe me, I am reminded of it every time I go to the VA. At the same time, I dont care to hear anyone else's either, especially when a list of duties are suppose to prove a point.

 

"A Perfect Example why America will lose the war on terror...."

America will never win the "war on terror" because no one can win a "war" against a tactic. And terror is a tactic.

 

Good to see you back Ken. Really missed your posts. It is kind of like a war on poverty from the 60's, when the Bible says we will always have the poor. Maybe a war against extreme Islam is a better way to put it.

 

I think we have to be more specific than that for our words to mean anything. We need to understand and state that we are at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their allies. And the Congress should pass a declaration of war stating so instead of passing a resolution that merely passes its constitutional authority to the president to declare war or not.

 

Very sensible and level headed thoughts there, Ken. I agree with you.

 

The enemy have already been clearly defined:

"... take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations ..."

"... take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States ..."

It's not that complicated by definition. It is a bit messy, by our enemy's choice, since they don't constitute a specific and legitimate nation and not even a unified organization.

We don't need to limit them by a specific clan or location. We may choose to limit them by threat - one by one - to fit the our needs and capabilities. One group will come up and other go down.

We just need to find them, fix them, and kill them until they stop or are no more even if it's to the end of time. We may also combine that with efforts to help establish local governments that are more favorable to peaceful co-existence.

Most likely, it will be a long and costly struggle.

 

I am researching it but I believe an actual delcaration of war creates other unintended issues that congress and the President are willing to avoid. For instance insurance companies have different responsibilities(I believe) during war. This would create hardships for the insured. It effects our economy. Declaring war cannot be done and expect business as usual. But I could be wrong.

 

It's real simple. We should officially declare war against al Qaeda, the Taliban, which includes anyone aiding them. Just as in World War II we declared war against Japan, Germany, and Italy, which included anyone aiding them.

 

Yes, the major one being following the law embodied in the U.S. constitution.

 

We did officially declare war against the terrorists and they include the ones you defined. They're likely to be others. They're not a nation like Japan, Germany, or Italy. It would certainly be easier if they were.

 

Constitutional law has been followed.