PDA

View Full Version : "Bet she regrets asking her question..."



davsel
07-01-2014, 10:18
Excellent response from Brigitte Gabriel
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/07/01/bet-she-regrets-asking-her-question/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

Questioner probably should have looked up Ms Gabriel's resume before taking a shot.

Great-Kazoo
07-01-2014, 10:22
Is a woman of color and clearly with an accent, allowed to say that;)

thvigil11
07-01-2014, 11:08
[Wow2]

MED
07-01-2014, 11:15
That was REALLY good!!!!!

Sharpienads
07-01-2014, 11:23
Good answer, and good point.

buffalobo
07-01-2014, 11:32
If that were a physical bitch slap, her head scarf would have flown across the room.

Irving
07-01-2014, 11:51
She never really answered the question though.

EDIT: Well, she did make it perfectly clear that the question was irrelevant to the purpose of the panel.

Bailey Guns
07-01-2014, 12:08
Verbal beheading. You go, girlfriend!

MED
07-01-2014, 12:53
She never really answered the question though.

EDIT: Well, she did make it perfectly clear that the question was irrelevant to the purpose of the panel.

I think the answer to her question is this (paraphrased): If there are 350 million Jihadists in the world committed to hate, terrorism, and imperialism, the Muslims who live peacefully are irrelevant because the Jihadists make them irrelevant and are not afraid to purge their own to do so same as all the imperial powers she mentioned. Islam is a threat to every peaceful civilization in the world, and it is time for us as a nation to wake up from the shackles of PC and accept the reality of it including you and every other Muslim in this country.


To add my own editorial: The policies of the Clinton and Obama administration of appeasement and concession to these people only invites more hostility and bloodshed, and gives them more ground and resources to do so. The policies of the Bush administration where the belief that these people can rise out of the ashes and be rebuilt was foolish. There is no reasoning with these people and every cent spent on them is a cent wasted; their numbers are too large to not influence their people in mass. The only answer to this problem is not morally acceptable, but we all will continue to pay the price because of it.

Irving
07-01-2014, 14:41
The question was "How do you intend to fight an ideology with weapons? "

Graves
07-01-2014, 15:09
The question was "How do you intend to fight an ideology with weapons? "

Head shots...lots of 'em.

rbeau30
07-01-2014, 15:28
^ This. ^

BPTactical
07-01-2014, 17:09
The question was "How do you intend to fight an ideology with weapons? "

You make the cost of that ideological fight so horrific that it becomes unattractive.

Think in megatons.

Hound
07-01-2014, 17:10
That was spot on, to the point and will be remembered the next time I see a debate with this issue.

roberth
07-01-2014, 18:03
The question was "How do you intend to fight an ideology with weapons? "

Utterly destroy the centers of that ideology, Mecca and Medina.

They destroyed one of our symbols, the World Trade Center, we should have destroyed theirs.

Who knows where their local mosques are...the time to find out is well past.

TEAMRICO
07-01-2014, 21:01
She made my private parts tingle!!!!

I have always liked her. Judge Jennean as well.

wyome
07-01-2014, 21:49
Wow...
Well said Ms. Gabriel

Samurai
07-01-2014, 22:16
that was fantastic, I loved the dude on the right just shaking his head like HELL YES, DESTROY THAT BITCH, SAY WHAT I CANT...since I am white...

HoneyBadger
07-02-2014, 10:47
That was entertaining.

As far as an answer to her question: Headshots may very well be a possible solution. But that sure adds fuel to their fire, doesn't it?

colorider
07-02-2014, 11:47
" put political correctness in the garbage". Yep, hit them hard and where they are. Forget the political correctness and eliminate the threat fast and with extreme power. They killed innocent people, we should do the same in our quest to eliminate the threat on a large scale.

68Charger
07-02-2014, 12:09
That was entertaining.

As far as an answer to her question: Headshots may very well be a possible solution. But that sure adds fuel to their fire, doesn't it?

It's a double-edged sword and really not a solution to the problem... but anything less they see as weakness, which is even more dangerous.

Irving
07-02-2014, 12:11
Saying, "Kill 'em all and kill 'em good!" is fun and all, but it is a cheap cop-out as far as an answer goes. The most common answer I hear is, "Make the price too high for them." That works for a speeding ticket, not a religious ideology. Can anyone draw a line in the sand as to when the cost would be too high for you to give up your 2A rights? What about your religious beliefs. I have a feeling that people killing you and others like you for what you believe, isn't going to make you any more likely to just up and believe something else.

Before people come in and start calling me a liberal and trashing me, I agree that this enemy should be engaged and eliminated, so save all the rhetoric for another thread. However, the simple question of "How do you fight an ideology with weapons?" is an interesting question with potential for some pretty deep and complex discussion well beyond "Shoot their faces off!"

MED
07-02-2014, 12:59
Saying, "Kill 'em all and kill 'em good!" is fun and all, but it is a cheap cop-out as far as an answer goes. The most common answer I hear is, "Make the price too high for them." That works for a speeding ticket, not a religious ideology. Can anyone draw a line in the sand as to when the cost would be too high for you to give up your 2A rights? What about your religious beliefs. I have a feeling that people killing you and others like you for what you believe, isn't going to make you any more likely to just up and believe something else.

Before people come in and start calling me a liberal and trashing me, I agree that this enemy should be engaged and eliminated, so save all the rhetoric for another thread. However, the simple question of "How do you fight an ideology with weapons?" is an interesting question with potential for some pretty deep and complex discussion well beyond "Shoot their faces off!"

First, our country needs to understand that 350 million jihadists are an imminent threat as does the rest of the world. There can be no productive action until this is accepted. Secondly, the notion of social justice in international relations costs this country lives and money. Third, adopt the doctrine of the only path of Jihad is destruction. My biggest frustration after 9/11 was the idea of rebuilding a friendly government...what a waste of time with the same eventual result as the Shah in Iran. The policy should have been terror equals death for either individuals, groups, or nations; make it a real choice and drive a wedge between those with something to lose and those who don't; isolate the jihadists as much as possible. After Iraq was destroyed, they should have been left to fight it out and rebuild themselves. Our policy should have been; who's next? The key problems here at home are the pussified resolve of the American people and the environmental BS that makes us dependent on Middle East oil. How can we truly be effective if we have to kiss the ass of Saudia Arabia and the other Arab oil producing countries? As the speaker stated, we need to wake up and accept the threat. With a commander and chief like Obama, we might as well just throw in the towel since that is what he is doing anyway as he turns over our national interests to foreign powers.

TFOGGER
07-02-2014, 13:01
The question was "How do you intend to fight an ideology with weapons? "

The same way you propagate an ideology with weapons. Radical Islam has made no apologies for using terror tactics to attempt to expand their sphere of influence or eliminate any and all that choose not to submit to their will. The only way to successfully combat such an opponent is to convince them that the cost of victory is too high(by extracting that cost in a significant way), or eliminate their ability to continue to wage war, by eliminating them.

Ranger353
07-02-2014, 13:06
Damm!

Irving
07-02-2014, 13:13
Well stated MED. I agree. TFOGGER, option 2 sounds like the only viable option to me.

68Charger
07-02-2014, 13:19
The question was "How do you intend to fight an ideology with weapons? "

You bring the fight to THEIR backyard, so it is largely there, and not on American soil (with the exception of consulates and embassies in Middle East region)
So when the inevitable suicide bombers strike, the innocent people it kills and impacts directly and indirectly are mostly other Muslims, and people in their region that need be the ones turning against the radicals.
There is a cost of American lives- but at least they are people trained to fight back, and not innocent American civilians on planes and in buildings that those planes are flown into...

This should also be combined with a propaganda war- if you're going to use drone strikes, there will be some collateral damage.
make it 100% clear that associating with, harboring or otherwise being around those groups may lead to your demise- "our fight is not with you, it is with those that seek to harm us"

Irving
07-02-2014, 13:23
Very good answer Luny.

davsel
07-02-2014, 14:31
Haven't head a peep from Japan since 9 Aug 1945.
Just sayin.

68Charger
07-02-2014, 15:06
Haven't head a peep from Japan since 9 Aug 1945.
Just sayin.

it ain't 1945 anymore....
just sayin.

You use nukes with the massive collateral damage associated with them, and the rest of the world will condemn your actions.
I know it feels like "99% of lawyers give the other 1% a bad name" but you nuke the Mid-East and Muslims around the rest of the world will "radicalize" in record numbers in other regions of the world, in addition our allies will turn their backs on us for going too far. It seems like a simple answer, but it would lead to much more complex issues. What about friendly nations that now have radioactive fallout because they're downwind from the mid-East... I mean, we're not going to have anyone answer the phones at call centers anymore! [Coffee]

davsel
07-02-2014, 15:31
it ain't 1945 anymore....
just sayin.

You use nukes with the massive collateral damage associated with them, and the rest of the world will condemn your actions.

I sincerely could not care less about what "the rest of the world" thinks?

If the scrawny little trouble making, wife beating neighbor down the street comes to my house, kills my son and rapes my wife, you can bet I will not be inviting him out to dinner to have a chat and ask him to please leave us alone. I will immediately eliminate his entire family with extreme prejudice. If the rest of the block gets upset, which they most likely will not due to their own problems with the offending family, I DON'T CARE. If his relatives from another state show up to throw rocks at my house in protest, I'll eliminate them as well. Eventually, all remaining relatives will either keep to themselves or suffer the same fate.

There is a reason we have the death penalty, and it should apply to more than just individuals.

68Charger
07-02-2014, 15:42
I sincerely could not care less about what "the rest of the world" thinks?

If the scrawny little trouble making, wife beating neighbor down the street comes to my house, kills my son and rapes my wife, you can bet I will not be inviting him out to dinner to have a chat and ask him to please leave us alone. I will immediately eliminate his entire family with extreme prejudice. If the rest of the block gets upset, which they most likely will not due to their own problems with the offending family, I DON'T CARE. If his relatives from another state show up to throw rocks at my house in protest, I'll eliminate them as well. Eventually, all remaining relatives will either keep to themselves or suffer the same fate.

There is a reason we have the death penalty, and it should apply to more than just individuals.

wow, what a shitty analogy....
So you're on the record as being ok with killing millions of innocent women and children, and sickening hundreds of millions more with radiation poisoning in order to target 10% of the population you nuked?

oh, and in your direct example, you'd kill the wife that was a victim of the wife-beater? you'd better bet you'd go to jail or worse over that one.
at the very least, you have some serious anger issues... sea kelp.

davsel
07-02-2014, 16:13
wow, what a shitty analogy....
So you're on the record as being ok with killing millions of innocent women and children, and sickening hundreds of millions more with radiation poisoning in order to target 10% of the population you nuked?

oh, and in your direct example, you'd kill the wife that was a victim of the wife-beater? you'd better bet you'd go to jail or worse over that one.
at the very least, you have some serious anger issues... sea kelp.

Absolutely - for the "record"
"...sickening hundreds of millions..." Check your facts on nuclear fallout.
Kill the wife who has actively taught her children to kill and rape my family? - your're damn right. Apart from my analogy, there is no such thing as putting a state in jail.

68Charger
07-02-2014, 16:18
Absolutely - for the "record"
"...sickening hundreds of millions..." Check your facts on nuclear fallout.
Kill the wife who has actively taught her children to kill and rape my family? - your're damn right. Apart from my analogy, there is no such thing as putting a state in jail.

I could argue semantics and fallout, but I think you've demonstrated just what kind of person you are- so I see no further need to continue.

milwaukeeshaker
07-07-2014, 16:04
How many millons of innocent civilians were killed by both the axis and allies in WW2? By the allies use of bombs and nukes on the enemy cities and infrastructure, did it end the war on both fronts? I rest my case.


wow, what a shitty analogy....
So you're on the record as being ok with killing millions of innocent women and children, and sickening hundreds of millions more with radiation poisoning in order to target 10% of the population you nuked?

oh, and in your direct example, you'd kill the wife that was a victim of the wife-beater? you'd better bet you'd go to jail or worse over that one.
at the very least, you have some serious anger issues... sea kelp.

rbeau30
07-07-2014, 16:50
Ban Religion! Holy Wars kill!

Great-Kazoo
07-07-2014, 17:13
Ban Religion! Holy Wars kill!

Amen to that.

Dave
07-07-2014, 19:35
Ban Religion! Holy Wars kill!


http://youtu.be/3Djohakx_FE

rbeau30
07-07-2014, 21:44
I mean... When was the last Atheist Holy War?

centrarchidae
07-08-2014, 00:25
I mean... When was the last Atheist Holy War?
Most of the Cold War?

Irving
07-08-2014, 00:43
I mean... When was the last Atheist Holy War?
Environmentalism

roberth
07-08-2014, 07:30
Environmentalism

Correct.

Graves
07-08-2014, 08:55
When was the last agnostic holy war?

TFOGGER
07-08-2014, 08:59
When was the last agnostic holy war?

I'm not sure....

Graves
07-08-2014, 09:01
HA!

Somebody gets it

Gman
07-08-2014, 19:36
The founding fathers finally learned what they had to ultimately do to deal with this ideology the first time around with the Barbary pirates.

Hey, muslims. If the jihadists are giving you a bad name, how about policing your own? If you do nothing to control them, then you tacitly approve....making you irrelevant.

wctriumph
07-08-2014, 20:14
If the jihadists acquire a nuke (or 2 or 5 or 10) what do you think they will do with it/them? Will they just say"Look at us, we have nukes, if you don't submit we will use them". Or will they launch or smuggle them into Israel or the US and set them off without warning? Is this what it will take to open people's eyes? In my opinion they will use them without hesitation and laugh when they get a strongly worded letter from the rest of the world.

Right now we don't have a solid target to shoot at. In my opinion we need to let them fight it out among themselves a little while longer until they solidify into a nice large target, then go in and hit the target as hard as we can and destroy it. When the leftover fragments start to settle down we go in and burn them down.

The only way to fight an ideology with weapons is to have an ideology armed with more and better weapons than their ideology is. At some point we will have to use our ideology against their ideology and we must prove to be stronger or we will be living on our knees with a sword always on our necks just waiting for an excuse to fall. If we wait until they come to us it will be too late.

My ideology is Freedom, their's is submission. I made my choice and can live with it. I will fight for it and will not submit to any other ideology.



TEA

III

milwaukeeshaker
07-08-2014, 21:16
We should not give a s**t about changing their ideology. We simply have to make it very difficult for them or their progeny to survive the destruction meted out by us. This is the only thing these asswipes understand! Power and destruction! We make it very difficult for them to wage war. They detonate a roadside bomb, we take out half a city. They capture and kill one of our men and then parade the body down the street, we kill 10 of their men we hold as prisoners. The only thing that would stop these ragheads is a superior force dedicated to the entire destruction of their way of life. That is the only deterrent that will stop these fanatics, you make the cost to them of "jihad" too high to continue, just like we did the Japanese. All of this said, I'm not advocating nukes.

mb504
07-08-2014, 22:00
Three strangers strike up a conversation in the airport passenger lounge in Bozeman, Montana, awaiting their flights.

One is an American Indian passing through from Lame Deer. Another is a Cowboy on his way to Billings for a livestock show and the third passenger is a fundamentalist Arab student, newly arrived at Montana State University from the Middle East.

Their discussion drifts to their diverse cultures. Soon, the two Westerners learn that the Arab is a devout, radical Muslim and the conversation falls into an uneasy lull.

The cowboy leans back in his chair, crosses his boots on a magazine table and tips his big sweat-stained hat forward over his face. The wind outside is blowing tumbleweeds around, and the old windsock is flapping; but still no plane comes.

Finally, the American Indian clears his throat and softly he speaks, "At one time here, my people were many, but sadly, now we are few."

The Muslim student raises an eyebrow and leans forward, "Once my people were few," he sneers, "and now we are many. Why do you suppose that is?"

The Montana cowboy shifts his toothpick to one side of his mouth and from the darkness beneath his Stetson says in a drawl, "That's 'cause we ain't played Cowboys and Muslims yet, but I do believe it's a-comin'."

Rucker61
07-08-2014, 22:54
I'm not sure....

Well played, sir.

osok-308
07-09-2014, 06:57
Oh wow. That was a very well executed and thought out argument. She dominated it!

Great-Kazoo
07-09-2014, 07:56
We should not give a s**t about changing their ideology. We simply have to make it very difficult for them or their progeny to survive the destruction meted out by us. This is the only thing these asswipes understand! Power and destruction! We make it very difficult for them to wage war. They detonate a roadside bomb, we take out half a city. They capture and kill one of our men and then parade the body down the street, we kill 10 of their men we hold as prisoners. The only thing that would stop these ragheads is a superior force dedicated to the entire destruction of their way of life. That is the only deterrent that will stop these fanatics, you make the cost to them of "jihad" too high to continue, just like we did the Japanese. All of this said, I'm not advocating nukes.



While i don't disagree in theory. You do realize this policy has been used since recorded history. The 1930 & 1940 era Germans honed this to an art.

milwaukeeshaker
07-09-2014, 21:03
We did the same back to them without the addition of genocide. WW1 and WW2 were real wars, not this police action B.S. we engage in now. Patton said we should let some other poor bastard die for his country.As I said, if we would give them real war, that would be the deterrant, not this PC "war'.


While i don't disagree in theory. You do realize this policy has been used since recorded history. The 1930 & 1940 era Germans honed this to an art.

Great-Kazoo
07-09-2014, 23:34
We did the same back to them without the addition of genocide. WW1 and WW2 were real wars, not this police action B.S. we engage in now. Patton said we should let some other poor bastard die for his country.As I said, if we would give them real war, that would be the deterrant, not this PC "war'.

When military personnel come home in flag draped coffins, it's a war. We can argue semantics , lots of dead military,= war.

bw88350
07-10-2014, 05:26
Brilliant! Perfectly executed response!

bobbyfairbanks
07-10-2014, 05:32
I love her!

bobbyfairbanks
07-10-2014, 06:34
You make the cost of that ideological fight so horrific that it becomes unattractive.

Think in megatons.

When are you running for president. I'll vote for ya

milwaukeeshaker
07-10-2014, 10:56
Yes, I know. When our military is being wounded or killed it's war, but these are undeclared, not ratified by Congress, police actions. I know it's a war to those who serve. You're getting off on a tangent. You said earlier the Germans honed war to an art, and I maintain so did we with the exception of the "Final solution".



When military personnel come home in flag draped coffins, it's a war. We can argue semantics , lots of dead military,= war.

roberth
07-12-2014, 07:10
I mean... When was the last Atheist Holy War?

You're in it right now. The war for tyranny is ongoing, the war against freedom is ongoing, the war against liberty is ongoing.

I'm betting that 'burka bitch' asking the question didn't register that she was being rebuffed.

jerrymrc
07-12-2014, 13:19
When military personnel come home in flag draped coffins, it's a war. We can argue semantics , lots of dead military,= war.

When they hand out the new ROE card and ya go WTF? How am I supposed to do this? Take off the gloves and let them do there job without some bureaucrat doublespeak to follow and things change.

Anyone that has made a trip to the sandbox would like to just pretend they don't exist. Makes the job much safer.

Aloha_Shooter
07-12-2014, 14:38
When was the last agnostic holy war?

The Democrats and other Leftists are engaged in it right now. "Social Justice", "Green Power", and "Progressivism" are their non-religious religions and they're as vehement about it as any holy warrior.

Mick-Boy
07-12-2014, 14:57
Boy are they going to be surprised when it turns hot...

KevDen2005
07-13-2014, 11:09
I'm not sure....


LOL!!!

I almost fell out of my seat on this one.