Tim Lynch On What Happens To A Society Controlled By Islam
BY Herschel Smith
7 years, 6 months ago
Islam promotes male aggression while crushing female vanity. Their cultural fear of female sexuality produces a bizarre dissonance reflected in increases in birth defects from intermarriage, a hatred of homosexuals but an acceptance of homosexual acts between young men and with younger boys. Large farm animals are at risk of rape when bands of armed young Muslim fighters are about; the US military has thousands of hours of surveillance video to prove that. The repression of females by Islamic society has produced shocking levels of hypocrisy which should make it the weaker participant in a clash of cultures yet, for now, the issue is in doubt …
There you have it, from a man who was there more than a decade outside the wire. Interestingly, earlier in the essay, Tim says this.
Understanding that wars must be ended quickly to prevent unnecessary deaths and destruction does not mean there will not be death destruction. Lobbing 123,984 16-inch shells into the towns and villages of France was not humane, it exposed the civilian population to unimaginable death and destruction but it also shortened a horrible war. Going into Musa Qala or Sangin and giving the tribes a simple ultimatum; join our side or we will burn down your villages, kill your livestock, and put all of you in ‘relocation camps’ is not humane. But it would have shorten the current Afghan war by a decade.
Of the many moral problems I had (and still have) with highly restrictive rules of engagement (ROE), one of the more pragmatic considerations is that the American people simply will not support a campaign where their boys are coming home in body bags for the sake of keeping others alive, no matter what the COIN theorists tell you.
And to think that folks had a problem with my posing the question, “Should Marcus Luttrell and those guys have just shot the goat herders as enemy spies” (which of course they turned out to be)?
On June 14, 2017 at 8:31 am, Fred said:
Fighting a war is an immoral act. The only moral way to fight a war is to win. Losing a war because you won’t fight to win is immoral, it’s war for the sake of war. ALL MORAL DECISIONS must be made at the outset. The decision must be made that the only solution before a holy and just God is to win. This requires, of course (are you listening John McCain and Lindsey Graham?), an actual credible threat. Then, there are no more morality questions, it’s kill or be killed. This question of “how do we fight them?” is now settled. Now you go about to kill them. You turn your entire nation and all it’s resources to the rightly natural task of survival and you kill the enemy. Then you kill them more. You destroy their property and drive them out before you and then you kill them some more and then kill them some more again until the ones left alive submit completely. And if you have to go Old Testament to ensure the perpetuation of your people, then you do it, all moral decisions having been settle prior to the start. You do this because it is the right thing to do for your people and for your nation.
Losing is the single most immoral thing a people could do. The Geneva conventions and the UN rules of engagement are designed to prevent a winner. They were created to ensure the perpetuation of the post WWII power structure. This is why we lose, it’s by design. And it’s unnatural and immoral.
Giving a man what amounts to an eighth grade education, a rifle, and an inch thick rule book of field morality riddles and then expecting him to win is WRONG, it’s unjust. It’s harmful to the man and to our nation. The blood of every soldier’s suicide is on the creator’s of this heinous crime. May this scam’s creators and perpetrators burn in hell forever.
Small wars, slow wars, fourth gen wars, slowly escalating wars, restrictive wars, wars on drugs, wars on poverty, wars on obesity, and the coming war on guns are all bullshit. They are for monetary profit.
On June 14, 2017 at 10:43 am, revjen45 said:
Short answer – Yes.