I'm just wondering, all those of you with the "nuke Mecca" comments, assuming you are grounded in reality, you know that's not going to happen, right?  So repeatedly saying it, that's what, supposed to make you feel better?  Or something?

Is it working? 

22 -

I was thinking Midnight Oil. 

Beds are burning, indeed. 

Posted by: kbdabear at September 15, 2012 04:42 PM (wwsoB)

Yeah but they also gave us AC/DC so it's a wash

There have been similar signs...held by muslim protesters...in Britain.

I'm pretty sure that once we bow to the demands of the radical jihadists and persecute the maker of a the video which is not sharia compliant, that they will just calmly go away and make no further demands.

If its one thing that radical jihadists are known for, is the concept of "enough is enough". 

I think reasonable murderous terrorists will agree not to be pushy about their sharia demands.

32 -

Yeah, I guess I didn't mean to imply that conditions wouldn't or couldn't change sufficiently enough that something similar might occur, just that it's not going to happen, as a result of the shenanigans happening right now. 

I'm really not being critical.  Just a reflection of my own inability to enjoy engaging in idle statements like that.   

Posted by: Little Achmed's Mother at September 15, 2012 04:36 PM (wwsoB)

LOL!  That's the first thing I thought of.

FOX:  FBI arrests man they say planned to set off car bomb in Chicago. 

Yeah, he was Muslim. 

Posted by: Tami at September 15, 2012 04:51 PM (X6akg)

that is so racist . . .

Posted by: Peaches is srsly pissed off at September 15, 2012 04:51 PM (kpCLl)

It is isn't it? 

YAY ME!

67 -

I don't believe that's the "real" fake Mary Clogginstein from Battleboro, VT. 

Nature.  Nurture.  Whatever. 

Fuck Islam.

I think we should also set realistic expectations when negotiating with the jihadists.  For instance, let's start with asking that they NOT sodomize our ambassadors before they murder them.

In return, we can agree to offer up one (or perhaps two) christians for federal probing.

And yet we've gotta be tough on them.  The first sign that they're sodomizing before murdering, bang!  No more Christians being investigated for you!!!!

Smart, tough diplomacy.

77 -

The Mary Clogginstein creature is almost as elusive as the  Spurwing Plover.  I briefly tried tracking it, but quickly realized I was out of my depth. 

I commented earlier this week re: nuking.  If it's just a vent, cool, but if not, ease up.  What we do need is a major conventional response - severe, protracted, and ruthless, or nukes may actually become the only workable option over time. 

Letting these protests fester without a rallying cry in the West against this kind of bald-faced gangsterism and muscle-flexing will result in a permanently-emboldened jihad.  We're already seeing it all over the West within days of 9/11. 

I'd start with airstrikes and covert action from all countries threatened (e.g. US, Britain, Australia, Germany etc) at any convenient targets on our copious watchlists, sustained over a period of months, with radically unrestricted RoE's including ignoring the so-called "sovereign borders" of pseudo-states like Libya, Egypt and Pakistan.  Also give the Israelis whatever they need and send in our forces with them if necessary to de-fang the Iranians and jerk Turkey and the other backsliding supposed allies of the region back into line.

66... In all of the pics of all of this tawdry shit, I saw ONE woman. Exactly one. And even that, I was not too sure about. Does the JEF actually espouse the muzzie war on women? Can we do something with that?

Everything that Barky and Dems espouse....is basically an "insult to islam', if you think about it.

The things they claim to be 'for'...women's rights, gay rights, keep religion out of govt., etc....are all against sharia law.

They ignore the islamist 'war on women', though.

I've heard a few conservative pundits say as much, in the last few days.

It needs to be brought up more.

Nuke Mecca.

Then we need to borrow Ace's Time Machine. 

We need to go into the future and figure out which ones we missed so we can come back and finish them off.

91 -

What a histrionic, you are. 

111 Political correctness will be the downfall of America.

Yep.

Political correctness...is a curtailment of Free Speech.

Just a random thought: I remember 2 years ago   people in our government told Pastor Terry Jones that  his Koran burning would result in soldiers' deaths (blood libel); but our government has long told us that Islam is a religion of PEACE. How do they square that contradiction? 

I'm so angry about this film-maker's  being hauled in by the FBI I can barely see straight. THIS is why I defended Jones two years ago, not just because I personally endorse  burning Korans, but I knew this would be the slippery slope. I was disgusted and dismayed  back then  seeing  the MAJORITY  of my fellow conservatives come out against Jones (Romney, Palin, AllahPundit, commenters at HA) and call him names like "crackpot", etc. They should've defended Jones' right to the hilt, especially while O was POTUS.  It probably encouraged O to act the way he is today; he probably thought, "heck, even conservatives don't love the 1st Amendment that much".

Posted by: Peaches is srsly pissed off at September 15, 2012 05:13 PM (kpCLl)

Depends on whether we have been naughty or nice.

Posted by: Ammo Dump at September 15, 2012 05:18 PM (YYyqq)

You say that like they are mutually exclusive . . . .

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at September 15, 2012 05:15 PM (KL49F)

But Terry Jones *is* a nut.  I don't think anyone was saying that the government should go after Terry Jones because he threatened to burn Korans, but I'm not going to defend nutjobs just because they claim to be on my team.

We've had the order of our responses reversed ever since the Koran burning dustup - first you state that Islam uses these incidents as a pretext and that's what they're doing once again.  They are the ones inciting violence on that pretext simply because it advances their warlike intentions.  Then you say that everyone has a right to free speech, which we will defend at gunpoint if necessary.  Then you can state that you don't agree with whatever the alleged outrage is.  Call them out - dare them to advance, then offer the olive branch to those few who aren't merely looking to start a fight but may instead be misled.  Instead we manage to lead with the olive branch, fail to defend free speech and practically never mention the fact that this is all pretextual "warfare by other means."

Posted by: Daybrother at September 15, 2012 04:44 PM (1FkrP) "

So much to think about here: first, we are allowed in AMERICA to  make  "needlessly hateful"  films if we want to; second, now it's no longer the Innocence of Muslims, now it's about the upcoming "Pres Gutsy Call Kilt OBL"? Obama gave this movie classified info to. I believe the film-maker  when he says O "ordered" him to make it. And third, is the FBI allowed to "restrain" Americans with no arrest warrant or no Miranda Rights being read?!

>>There are no deeper issues to be hashed out here.

There are no deeper issues to be hashed out here.

Posted by: Crazy Bald Guy at September 15, 2012 05:22 PM (8ltUk)

I think it is pretty clear it was the movie; "The Trouble with Angels" starring Haley Mills.

Posted by: Picric at September 15, 2012 04:52 PM (Bq37M)

---------------------------------------------

I hope it fills up quickly.

...Could have been 'Big trouble in little China".

Hey. I like that movie.

Once a Muzzie shit on us and he thought it was a gas

Soon turned out had a land of glass

Seemed like the cool thing, only to find

Much of mistrust, life's gone behind

Once they had life and it was divine

Soon found out they lost their mind

It became the real thing but and they were so blind

Much he thought it was cool, but JEF is gone and shit is behind

Soon turned out had a land of glass

A few years back Oleg at The People's Cube wrote a theory of his that the anti-Americanism of the middle east is the result of decades of KGB psychological operations in the area.  Don't know how true this is but it really explains a lot.

Had to be Bill Cosby's Leonard, Part 6.  Had to be.

Maybe Howard the Duck.

140 - Plus a 16 year occupation (really only heavy for 10ish), dictating their Constitution, 350,000 troops for a 70 million population, etc...

The biggest difference as I said in another comment is that they had nowhere to go.  There wasn't another bastion of Japanese imperialism to hole up with if you "escaped" the occupation.  It's a lot easier to pacify folks if they can't relocate among fellow travellers.  If you nuked the whole MidEast, however, the survivors would just travel to Asia, or elsewhere (e.g. Michigan - thanks for that border security, US ICE and Canada).  71 million Japanese with nowhere to go doesn't = 1.5 billion Muslims with plenty of friends to relocate to while they plot revenge.  Apple/orange.  Tempting idea, granted, but this one's going to take a lot longer and cost a lot more lives than ending the war with Japan.

It was "ISHTAR", with Dustin Hoffman and Waren Beatty that caused 9/11.  It was only box office failure caused by the majority of Americans unwilling to even see the film for free, and the resulting dismal publicity that prevented it from happening sooner.

Lets put them on trial too! 

Posted by: Kristophr at September 15, 2012 05:29 PM (0aV2C)

----------------------------------------

If we go that direction, these nukes should be  the dirtiest we have in our arsenal.  Then vaporize  mecca and medina.  And then one-hundred  years from now, anyone setting foot in that area would be reduced to deep-fried cookie dough.

"Islamic Supremecist" is the way to go.  It is in fact what they want, and it captures the political nature of Islam as well.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at September 15, 2012 05:32 PM (9TTOe)

Never underestimate the craven treachery of the left. There are plenty of oh-so-intellectual leftists who would convert into a muslim zealot in a New York minute, if physically threatened.

You know....I had been wondering, why that 'Zero Dark Thirty' movie was being held back from being released...

It's been in the can, for months.

It was supposed to 'help' Barky...by making him look good, right?

So, why are waiting till after the Election to release it?

Is it because he asked them to?

Why wait?

Does Barky figure that the movie will...cause muslim unrest?

It's sort of a no-brainer in the first place, really.

How could he not know that.

The goat-fuckers have already been chanting "we are all Osama!" in the streets. 

Does team Barky want to delay the enevitable outbreak of muslim outrage, until after the Election, so that he will have a new 'excuse'...to impose new controls on the media?

So let me get this straight. There's a War on Women but no War on Terror? Hey guys, little less focus on the labia little more on Libya.

Nuke Mecca and Medinah. But hold off on Medinah until after the Ryder Cup. I like our chances this year.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at September 15, 2012 05:35 PM (nZvGM)

*golf clap*

Islam teaches that all Muslims are superior to non-Muslims.

And should be respected as such. Islamic Supremecism.

Posted by: Honey Badger at September 15, 2012 05:36 PM (Vdd8W)

Don't they throw rocks at that thing? We could always claim that we thought we were doing them a favor.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at September 15, 2012 05:18 PM (9TTOe) "

I agree with the first part of your post, but what does "murderers need to be handled appropriately" mean? Who's a "murderer"?

>>A proper nuclear strike on Dar Al Islam will require a fairly large portion of the 100 kt warheads on our submarine launched ballistic missiles.

Okay. 

Posted by: Wyatt's Torch at September 15, 2012 05:42 PM (zxrQh)

Yeah, I've had no problems....but I do keep seeing people mention problems.

I blame Justin Bieber for everything going   on in the Middle East   and our American culture for the matter.  I also blame Cake Girl.  Basically because I don't get the Cake Girl 'love'.  Maybe it's because I don't have testicles.

In other news,  Zogby says that Obama leads Romney among self-identified NASCAR fans 44-43.  I haven't met a NASCAR fan that has voted Democrat since Jimmy Carter, but who knows. ???  The good news is that Romney leads among people who frequent  Wal-Mart.  Oh, and grandmas like Romney better too.  "Creative people" might be running away from Obama though. The world is off-balance.

Posted by: IdowhatIwant at September 15, 2012 05:36 PM (ULFth)

Or even if was in their financial interest. Or if it would give them a momentary feeling of moral superiority.   For them, it is it the feeling that counts, not any intellectual integrity.

Posted by: chemjeff at September 15, 2012 05:22 PM (d/5qf)

How is he a "nut"? I mean it,  tell me exactly what about Jones is "nutty".  Everything  he said  about the Koran  was spot-on. He has studied the vile book and he decided the best thing was to burn it.  Just like Ann Barnhardt.  The blood libels put on him  by Romney, Obama, and Petreaus were disgusting  and an over-reach of government pressure.

194 - where to start, though ?  There isn't an Islamic "Emperor" who can go on the radio and tell his people to quit.  Likewise which set of ruling generals do you demand the surrender from ?  Like it or not, this conflict has to be done tribe by tribe, country by country, and will likely require either long-term occupation and/or relocation.  We had the right idea in invading Afghanistan and Iraq, but we tried too tentatively, worried too much about keeping local authorities in place, and we were working with countries whose ethnic makeup was a fruit salad of hostile tribes thrown together at Versailles by the same geniuses that gave us WWI.  Plus we let them vote for Sharia constitutions.  Small-scale, ruthless and overwhelming is how to work the COIN.  There isn't a magic bullet for this, or 1500 MIRV's that stand in for one.

Posted by: phoenixgirl, still angry at September 15, 2012 05:44 PM (Ho2rs)

Geez.....did that guy take a RPG to the forehead or what?

Posted by: lesbian seagull at September 15, 2012 05:29 PM (xXhWA) "

Interesting theory, but the Koran  beat the KGB to that. "Kill the infidels/people of the book" pre-dates KGB psy-ops by hundreds of years.

Posted by: phoenixgirl, still angry at September 15, 2012 05:49 PM (Ho2rs)

I think we've found the cause of their brain damage.

Posted by: wheatie at September 15, 2012 05:37 PM (Z7b/q)

Either that or O wants to hand a burning world to Romney to deal with. Payback for Romney's arrogance in running against him and winning.

A Theocracy...can never be a Democracy.

Not one in the same sense that we think of.

That is why the 'Arab Spring' was nothing for us to be cheering about.

Islam is a form of government, first.....and a religion, second.

Actually...it is a totalitariam form of government, masquerading as a 'religion'.

That is why, an 'Islamic country' can never be a real 'democracy'.

Posted by: @PurpAv at September 15, 2012 05:53 PM (4xxoc)

--------------------------------------------

One of the elements of free speech that many seem to forget is that people who oppose  what's been said  or done  are  free  to say what they wish also.

You also can't nuke the entire Islamic world - and I think you're underestimating how close you'd have to come to that in order to produce psychological capitulation.  Do we nuke the 50 million Muslims in Europe ?  60 million in the former USSR ?  200 million in Indonesia ?  180 million in India ?  These countries wouldn't stand for it, and they won't take "you didn't keep your Muzzies in line" as an excuse, either.  It's a pipe dream.

There's nothing civilized about conventional war.  It's not like JDAM'ing someone isn't enough to make your point.  Lobbing nukes at any Muslim who pisses America off would necessarily involve fighting the whole planet, and some of the other countries have nukes too.  Let's keep this real.

normal o

normal o

(( . )( . )) ....Boobies!

normal o

normal o

Posted by: @PurpAv at September 15, 2012 06:00 PM (4xxoc)

-----------------------------------------------

And burn every scrap of paper or text that these people  and their mosques possess.

Posted by: Mekan at September 15, 2012 06:00 PM (T/L2Z)"

That's the thought that occured to me during the Jones "crisis" in '10: only a weak god needs his adherents to kill people  whenever  he's been offended. Mo is made of sugar.

Christians don't riot over offenses to Christ because our God is bigger than any human's blasphemy. Christians don't riot over the Bible being burned because our God is much bigger than that. Burning the Bible does not in any way  lessen Who God is. At the end of the day, God is still God.

Heck, that's why Americans don't riot when they see the Amerian flag being burned. It doesn't lessen America. America is still America (well, not so much under O, but you know what I mean).

Posted by: comatus at September 15, 2012 06:02 PM (qaVK+)

-------------------------------------------

*unzips, checks*..........*sigh*

<< We have big nukes and little nukes. Time to scare some people. >>

Who do we start with ?   If you say Iran's nuke facilities, I'd think about it, although I think we can still conventionally wipe those out.

I don't want to play the "we can't do anything because any action has undesirable consequences" game that Libs do.  I think we need to hit the jihadis hard, and sooner than later.  I just don't think nukes are the best way to do it.  Even if you nuke Tehran, you also take out the same people who we left in the lurch 3 years ago when they tried a revolution that might actually have helped our interests.  I don't believe in RoE'ing ourselves out of effectiveness, but don't use an meataxe where a knife would do the job.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at September 15, 2012 06:15 PM (WLuv5)

--------------------------------------------

I'd say, for the opening act, pulverize the mosque  on the Temple Mount in Jeruselem.  Then tell the muzzies for every attack another sacred cite will be destroyed.  AND mecca and medina are on the table.

The UN also makes the use of nukes more complicated because it allows countries like Pakistan and Iran to wage war through proxy forces while remaining "officially" at peace.  It's based on a flawed concept of national sovereignty.  Ask anyone who fought in Afghanistan whether Karzai was an ally, or whether he really controlled his own country most of the time.  Nuking an ostensibly "at peace" nation would tar us with the aggressors' brush, which regrettably still matters.  If you want to make the case to nuke a country rather than a "group" like Al Qeda, you have to wade through that thicket, or deal with the UN membership's bullshit.  Killing them with HE or bullets makes them just as dead, and avoids that tarbaby.

275
Mark Steyn made that analogy?

then he too must read AoS

I think a lot of the pundits do.

They would never admit it though.

Things I see here, in comments...frequently are repeated days later, by the pundits.

They clean up the language a bit.

But it's still the same basic point, or thought.

"No, no, no. Christians would try to behead those who insult Jesus, if it said in the Bible:

"John 3:16 Behead those who insult Jesus." but it doesn't say that.
[snip]Posted by: concerned like a troll at September 15, 2012 06:14 PM (H/nPL) "

That's my point.  The Bible  doesn't say that because it doesn't have to. The Bible tells us that our God is so great that we don't have to defend Him. No matter what humans do or don't do, God is always God. That's why Christians are so secure in their faith and why we don't riot; the Bible has told us we don't have to.

Posted by: Honey Badger at September 15, 2012 06:22 PM (xhupI)

---------------------------------------------

Of course that would have them proclaiming that ole' shit-for-brains has finally crawled out of the well. 

Posted by: concerned like a troll

Hmmmm . . .the exact commandment I would expect if you were worshipping a demon.

280 brigitte gabriel wrote a book called "because they hate" that is the reason muslims act the way they do....because they hate

It's a moon-worshipping hate-cult.

There's no appeasing them.

There is only submission, or death.

Barky thought he could appease them...with putting that moon in his logo, rising over rivers of blood.

That's how the islamists see his logo.

The DNC thought they could appease them...with their convention moon-logo...and taking Jerusalem out of their platform.

Didn't work.

Appeasement...does...not...work.

Never will.

Fear is the only thing that holds them at bay.

278 - try getting Bibi to authorize bombing Jerusalem in general, much less the Temple Mount.  Not gonna happen.  

Muslims not being monolithically led, no one's going to see the dots connecting some terrorist act and our bombing a generalized holy site like Mecca or Medina, either.  In that case, welcome to a war with all 1.5 billion Muslims at once.  It would be like Jakarta nuking Washington DC because a sometime US ally like Russia invaded Chechnya and stormed the Indonesian consulate in the process.  I know its tempting to look for one-shot solutions, but smaller scale and longer term is what we can realistically accomplish.  The rest is utopian.

Posted by: Tami at September 15, 2012 05:51 PM (X6akg)"

The average IQ in Muslim countries is pretty low, so you've already got to be a little brain-damaged to be a Muslim in the first place.

"Islam is a form of government, first.....and a religion, second.
Actually...it is a totalitariam form of government, masquerading as a 'religion'."

Islam is the kind of religion a guy like Tony Soprano would invent, and just as legitimate. It's just a rationalization of gangsterism.

#277

Nope.  You are wrong there.  A politician can always change his mind.   Picture this statement:

POTUS:  (Of any Party)  My fellow Americans,  at various times, my three previous predecessors have described Islam as 1) A Regligion and 2) of Peace...

Since 1995 there have been over 30,000 attacks on non-Muslims perpetrated by Muslims.

In the U.N. there have been 75 motions put forward by the OIC (ORganization of Islamic Countries) to create blasphemy laws.

Mr predecessors were wrong:  Islam is not a religion, it is a political and religious affiliation that espouses the superiority of Muslims.  And it most certainly not peaceful.  It isn't and we all, all of us know it.  ......I could go on, but do you get the point.

Maybe that is where Obama is going with this. 

Another random thought:  the day this started in Egypt and Libya, I read an article that stated that the perps claimed it was because of  an Al-Qaeda leader killed by a DRONE in August, and another who claimed it was because of a  Muslim named Rahman who was in prison in America for his role in the '93 WTC bombing. IOW, nothing to do with a youtube video.

Now, I wonder why the MSM doesn't want to address the  leader killed by a drone? Could it be because O did that? /sarc

And as for taking on the 1.5 billion "bring it on" style, I'm with Comatus:

"We don't have a 600 ship navy, and we don't have thousands of nuclear warheads. We count our army in brigades now, so you won't run the chart on how many divisions we used to have. And we're suddenly missing about 40,000 Marines from the downsized force we decided might be adequate when History Ended 20 years ago..."

Posted by: Serious Cat at September 15, 2012 06:16 PM (zrpqj)

Excellent analogy by Mark. Thanks for the link.

I'm beginning to think "moderate muslim" just means they'll shoot you instead of cutting your head off with a knife.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at September 15, 2012 06:26 PM (05RcU)

Yep. Mo's sugar. BTW, I didn't mean  to leave Jews out; I only addressed Christians specifically b/c the poster I was replying to used  a New Testament verse. But what I said goes for Jews, too.

Perhaps the era of the embassy is over.  Do we really still need 19th century-style diplomacy in the 21st century?  

 Those great big, fancy, expensive embassy buildings with bloated staffs are just national security sieves.  They clearly expose us to all sorts of potential danger throughout the world, and what are they truly necessary for?

 I really think that we need some really outside-the-box thinking regarding whether embassies and foreign ambassadors with huge staffs are necessary.  With instant, worldwide communication, who needs 'em, anyway?  So many of our approaches to government are 19th century relics (or older).  We need some serious re-evaluation of whether or not many of our existing government structures are capable or achieving our goals.

In any event, I would certainly close every one of our embassies that get rioted at and expell those countries diplomates from the US and close up their embassies here (both things, permanently).  Along with cancelling all foreign aid to the rioting countries, of course.  At minimum.

298/301:  Assassinate or "Rendition" them then deny we had any knowledge or culpability ?  That could have some real political and psychological advantages.  The Muj look over their shoulders at every shadow, don't know who their enemies or friends are, and we simply deny, deny, deny, Mossad-style.  I'm going to kick that around in my head some more.

Posted by: Kristophr at September 15, 2012 06:32 PM (0aV2C) ..........................................Why? We have had periods of peace in our thousand year war with Islam.  But it never ends.  Why not finish it, and save our children from having to fight again, always with more destructive weapons?

Moderate Muslim means they are part of the diplomatic wing, not the armed wing of the Muslim take over.

I for one welcome my Muslim overlords.  I am single, male, and hate my sister and mother.  I can't wait until I get financial control over them.

I'm beginning to think "moderate muslim" just means they'll shoot you instead of cutting your head off with a knife.

Posted by: Invictus at September 15, 2012 06:34 PM (OQpzc)

I figured that "moderate muslim" means the sleeper cell running that shady looking cash 'n carry south of the airport.

Posted by: Kristophr at September 15, 2012 06:37 PM (0aV2C)

----------------------------------------------

I agree.  Let's figure out some way not to burn up the Persian babes.

316 Elisheba:  "Perhaps the era of the embassy is over.Do we really stillneed 19th century-style diplomacy in the 21st century?"

There's a lot to be said for that.  There's something "symbolic" in having one's sovereignty recognized by a fellow nation in terms of cementing treaty obligations, etc... but as I said above, sovereign territory's becoming an outdated concept.  Asylum seekers need somewhere to go ?  Not sure if that's worth the candle.  Another concept I like the sound of, at least at first.  If we were sitting in Washington bandying words via "GoToMeeting.com" it would be a helluva lot harder to kill us.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at September 15, 2012 06:45 PM (WLuv5)

----------------------------------------------

Americans are travelers.  It's just baked into our mentality.  Whenever I go overseas, I always make sure I know where and embassy  or consulate offices are.  If, for some reason or another, something happens and I need a safe refuge, I  know I'll have one.  (Understanding that the SCOAMT will not be president after this Jan.)   

A moderate muslim beheads you with a sharp knife.The bad ones use a dull rusty one.

Posted by: steevy at September 15, 2012 06:45 PM (6o4Fb)

Duly noted.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at September 15, 2012 06:49 PM (jucos)

A)  Thats not a bomb, thats just a picture of your typical female democrat at a union ralley. 

b) Anal sex between men is very commonplace in the middle east.  The mullahs encourage them to practice often by stretching their anuses so when the time comes, they can fit a bomb up there for the glory of allah.

I'm more agreeable to the covert rendition/assassination with denial strategy (Yip @29 than nukes with inevitable massive collateral damage.  As with anything covert it comes down to whether you trust leadership and their oversight not to overstep, but in terms of counterinsurgency, killing potential allies wholesale seems much less desirable than removing suspected enemies more "cleanly," and with the occasional possibility of seizing them for interrogation to boot.

I'm normally a fan of government transparency, but not when it comes to covert military action. 

Natural resources.

Establishing trade...to get access to the natural resources, that we don't have in our own country.

These are the reasons why embassies were established.

'Tourism'...was often a cover, for 'scouting for natural resources'.

Actual, real tourism, came much later.

But all that was before the Internet.

Now...more than ever before...we actually could get away with simply sitting back and saying:

"Got something we might like to buy? Bring it to us, we'll talk."

Posted by: Is what JQ Public is thinking... at September 15, 2012 07:09 PM (NBj0d)

Back away from the caffeine, Mr. Hyperbole.

Ace, are you trying to jerk Pam Geller's chain or something?  Pics of "Behead those who insult Islam" derps,  Islamic rage boys, and Pally kids with bomb belts are so 2000 late.  Did you mean that this picture would have been a corker 35 years ago?