I remember that back in the 80s when I was but a wee child there were a people called Communists. They were very bad, but we also had Rambo and he killed them. Thus we felt safe and happy and would say, “Yea, though there be Communists, verily there is John Rambo to kill them. Things are well in the world.”
Today, there no longer are Communists since Rambo killed them all with explosive arrows, but there are terrorists. “Who will kill the terrorists?” we ask, and it is a good question. I think it is the responsibility of the government to kill terrorists. My reasoning on it is thusly: Terrorists live and plot in many different foreign countries with lots of different wacky laws. Thus, it’s much easier for the U.S. government to stomp around ignoring those laws than it is for individuals. If I went into those countries to kill terrorists, those countries would say, “Hey, Frank. You are ignoring are laws. You go to prison now.” And they would take me to wacky foreign prison, and I would not be able to resist because there would be many of them and they would be mean. But the U.S. government is even bigger and meaner and thus can ignore stupid foreign laws to kill the terrorists.
Since it is resolved it’s the government’s job to kill terrorists, who in the government should kill them? The I.R.S? Congress? Those nine old people who tell us what the Constitution means? No, I don’t think any of those people are properly equipped to kill terrorists. When I think of who in the government could be good at killing terrorists, I think of the military. They have guns and training at killing. They seem to be the perfect candidates for killing terrorists. Thus I say that our military should be tasked with killing terrorists.
Now that I’ve logically proved that the U.S. military should kill terrorists, it seems strange that some people would want to pull troops out of the Middle East. That’s where the terrorists are! I guess eventually they’ll come to us a few at a time, but it is so much more efficient to go over there and kill them en masse. When people say, “No! Bring the troops home!” I say, “But there aren’t many terrorists at home. They are over there. You are being silly.” Why would we move the troops? Who is more important to kill than the terrorists? The Swedes? Certainly not.
When someone tells you we should bring the troops back, ask him who does he think will then kill the terrorists. When he inevitably gives you a dumb answer, punch him in the face as should be the punishment for answers that are stupid. As is obvious, the U.S. military should kill terrorists.
Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as “The Police Should Arrest Criminals” and “Tax Collectors Should Collect Taxes (Or, Preferably, Drop Dead).”
Frank, Frank, Frank! You miss the point! There wouldn’t be any terrorists if it weren’t for the United States, Bush, Cheney, Halliburten and the Jooooooos! And if we could just sit down with them and “feel their pain” and do something “for the children” and do away with Bush’s evil tax cuts and fix global warming all would be well with the world and we could eliminate our military all together! I just punched myself in the face!
ussjimmycarter PUNCH—just want to make sure that whatever that was is out of your system.
Those Scandis may not be first on the list but the Swedes will get theirs. Oh yes. They will.
I just thought I’d put it out there before some liberal tard had a chance to vent… We know they actually think this stuff for real!
Why can’t we take King Edwards stance in Braveheart?
If we can’t get them out, we’ll simply breed them out.
Make love not war!
Screw it, throw in some interlocking fields of fire…. just to make sure.
Bravo on the editorial!
Amen, Frank J., amen.
Today, there no longer are Communists since Rambo killed them all with explosive arrows
Um, sure you’re not thinking about them Duke boys? I mean Bo & Luke, not the lacrosse players…
Did you ever notice that after the terrorists all put their hoods on to hide their sissy faces, you never see any Swedes standing around? I’m sure you have. Connect the dots, folks.
Don’t be so easy on the Swedes. Have you ever heard of surstromming? Google it. Then send in the marines. That stuff may be the most potent biological weapon on the planet, and Swedes clearly are willing to sell it openly to any terrorist group known.
Wait, wait, wait! The whole point of a hero-type getting thrown into a foreign jail is that then he gets to kill a lot of foreigners while escaping! That way you have dead foreigners AND dead terrorists, all at the same time!
Other than that, your logic is sound.
Why, I was told just yesterday that we need to “engage” the barbaric and backward mideast Islamic peoples into a more genteel “enlightenment.”
I think the military can do this very well, also.
:o)
Well yes the US Military should kill the terrorists in other countries. We should also kill those who aid and abet them( I thing that means give them money and magical brownies).
Some of those who aid and abet are “sorta allies” and we would hurt their feelings if we blew things and people up in their country. That would make some people mad at us both in other countries and in the US. So the question is: To save hurt feelings should we just kill a few to get the message across or kill a whole lot of them since well catch hell from weenies anyway?
And:
What do we do with people who live in the US who also aide and abet (makes silly exuses and blame the price of parakeet seed on the US?)
The military can’t kill them because it is against some Constitutional law. It’s difficult for the FBI because you have to have two witness to testify they saw the act of adidng and bedwetting take place. Since it seems impossible for legislatures, DAs, and judges to even define waiding add awetting. I think it should be decided on American Idol type show.
Since it is resolved it’s the government’s job to kill terrorists, who in the government should kill them?
What about the postal service? They have uniforms. They have guns. They could even sneek up close by pretending they have a letter to deliver!
We should have a multi-pronged approach:
the military can KILL the terrorists.
the IRS can TAX the terrorists.
the nine old people can declare that the Constitution doesn’t apply to terrorists.
etc.
The problem is that occasionally a Democrat is put in charge of the military and then, foreigners aren’t afraid of our military anymore (I know, stupid foreigners).
But…. that seems to put a hole in your plan.
I figure we start publicizing that al Quaeda is infringing on Disney’s intellectual property (some suitable photoshops should work to get the ball rolling) and we all know Hamas backed down when Disney came calling.
Just saying we should have a back-up plan in case something odd happens in 2008.
Next you’ll expect us to believe that the best people to teach our kids are teachers…which is obviously the farthest thing from the truth…
As is obvious, the U.S. military should kill terrorists.
And the hate-filled lefties, too. And, as long as they’re at it, my boss.
I think Gully and IiBliss are onto something. At least by retasking the Post Office, we’ll keep them from destroying our restaurants. Who cares about the eateries in the foreign countries.
Mmmm… barbecued flesh and Hummus
Don’t get me wrong, the article is funny. But I think the funniest thing, Frank, is the credits at the bottom:
Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as “The Police Should Arrest Criminals” and “Tax Collectors Should Collect Taxes (Or, Preferably, Drop Dead).”
Now THAT made laugh outloud.
I’m willing to bring some troops back, as long as the reason is to have enough manpower to conduct the trials for treason in a time of war against the majority of the DemocRAT Party. Not only will it be cheaper (they can just use the ammunition they already have for the executions!), but it will also be that much easier for them to get back to killing terrorists without traitors at home.
(Before Monday’s hearings, I would have just been kidding; now I’m not).
Here’s a candid photograph of Bushboy formulating his strategy for the next six months in Iraq: http://wwwthepartyofthewidestance.blogspot.com/
INSPIRING!! So I guess you’ll be down at the recruiting office this afternoon to sign up, then. But why did you wait so long?
[Did you read it? I thought what I wrote was very clear. If you had trouble understanding it, then maybe you should make sure the toys you stick in your mouth don’t have lead paint from China. -Ed.]
Don’t worry too much about the Swedes…they aren’t a particularly bright people as a whole. We know them well here in Minnesota. Any group of people that eats what they do can’t be operating with a full deck…
It’s easy. We just need to go through the world with bombs, guns, and nukes and kill everyone who is one of THEM. “THEY” are definitely the problem. I’ve been all around the world and there are lots of THEM everywhere. That’s the only way WE can be safe. I figure this is about all the analysis WE need.
The funniest part about this editorial? Roughly 77% will look at it and say, “Well, that’s just common sense.” with the least politically active not really understanding why it even should have been written.
The other 23%? See patriot76 in comment #21, Mirror in #22 and Karlo in #24 above. The only use for the US military to them is for someone to bash who won’t beat them up (Ironic huh?).
I bet it took them so long to respond because they were trying to figure out if it was satire or parody.
Don’t tell them it was satirical parody (or parodic satire? I always get those two confused) or their heads will pop.
This morning I read that the Swedish government has determined that men are worse for the environment than are women (http://www.thelocal.se/8322/20070829/). The Swedish government is doing this study for the UN. The Swedish government is working hand-in-glove with the UN to wipe out men. Especially men like John Rambo.
As a man, I think we should divert a couple of Marines to Sweden to kick ass and take names, ’til the damned Swedes get some common sense.
I don’t think it our government’s job to kill anyone who is not actively involved in planning, and has the real-time potential to conduct, or is actively involved in conducting terrorist activities against the United States.
Even with real terrorists, the job isn’t to kill them it’s to protect us from them. Killing is one way to do that; it’s not the only way. And killing them seems to be messy, in that lots of innocents also get killed. (FYI, “brown skinned people who aren’t Christians” is not a definition of “terrorist.”)
Funny how the our oh-so-effective military can’t seem to get the number one terrorist – Osama bin Laden.
If you aren’t going to volunteer, get trained, and go out and kill terrorists while in the military, how about contracting with the Bush administration to get Osama for us?
I bet that one individual, even starting out untrained, given, say $50M and unlimited spending authority on it, could find and kill bin Laden within a year.
Oh, wait, I forgot, Osama’s “not important” anymore. 🙂
Crap! I fell for it. 🙂
Next time I’ll look around the page.
You did an excellent job of imitating someone who might post on World Net Daily!
We should also kill those who aid and abet them( I thing that means give them money and magical brownies).
But then we would have to kill democRATS.
Those are two darn funny comments. Sorry, I usually just try to do humor here, but I really need to fisk this if only for myself.
I don’t think it our government’s job to kill anyone who is not actively involved in planning, and has the real-time potential to conduct, or is actively involved in conducting terrorist activities against the United States.
What are you? Some sort of comsymp? Well, terrsymp, but you know how us neo-cons really miss fighting commies.
Even with real terrorists, the job isn’t to kill them it’s to protect us from them. Killing is one way to do that; it’s not the only way
Why do I have a feeling you are against Gitmo and see nothing wrong with holding both of those opinions?
And killing them seems to be messy, in that lots of innocents also get killed.
Not killing them means lots of innocents get killed, or don’t you watch the news? The difference? If you kill terrorists, a lot fewer innocents get killed. Well, unless you’re a fan of the BBC and don’t think that dead Jews or dead Americans count for much, but that those wedding parties made up of all men in the desert between Iraq and Syria are important.
(FYI, “brown skinned people who aren’t Christians” is not a definition of “terrorist.”)
Buh? That is the definition of a terrorist. At least that’s the one we cowboy Americans use. Why, even the former brown folks in our military loves to kill them some brown furriners.
Moron.
Funny how the our oh-so-effective military can’t seem to get the number one terrorist – Osama bin Laden.
You seem to have some misconceptions as to exactly what our military is supposed to do. I know, the fact that you are questioning whether they should kill terrorists should have been my first clue, but still. At least make your nonsense plausible. Now, if Osama is still alive (I have doubts), he is probably in Pakistan. Should we invade another country? You seem to be against doing that in another context, so can I assume you’re not exactly given to rigorous, intellectual thought or that you’re just a partisan attacking no matter the facts? Or both?
If you aren’t going to volunteer, get trained, and go out and kill terrorists while in the military, how about contracting with the Bush administration to get Osama for us?
See that? Chickenhawk and Bu$h in one sentence, the farce is strong with this one. Points off for not getting a Nazi or at least a fascist reference in, but still pretty good.
I bet that one individual, even starting out untrained, given, say $50M and unlimited spending authority on it, could find and kill bin Laden within a year.
Hmmm, I’m gonna have to disagree with you there hoss. You see, there is a $50million (I think, at least it started at $25 million and I seem to recall it being increased) reward on him and he’s still at large.
Oh, wait, I forgot, Osama’s “not important” anymore. 🙂
Good for you, you can figure stuff out. Not that we don’t still want to catch him, but someone hiding in a cave, crapping his robes whenever a helicopter goes by (or a particularly loud bird) and sending out lefty-talking points isn’t really important. But then, I guess you feel important sending out lefty talking points. I have a feeling you keep misspelling “impotent” when you do think that, but hey, keep up those dillusions of adequacy if that’s all you have going for you.
Crap! I fell for it. 🙂
Next time I’ll look around the page.
You did an excellent job of imitating someone who might post on World Net Daily!
Huh, I guess that is all you have going for you. Carry on.
I bet that one individual, even starting out untrained, given, say $50M and unlimited spending authority on it, could find and kill bin Laden within a year.
Yes! And I bet we’re all cool and nice to people, ther will be no more terrorist! And I bet if we all just vote for it, health care can be free charges! And if we all close our eyes and click our heels three times, all guns will go away and no more people get crimed!
Yes yes yes! Logic is so consistent! Yes mom? Okay, I punch myself in the face…
yours/
peter.
Rambo was an OK Commie Killer I guess but John Wayne was slaughtering them without mercy even before J.Edgar Hoover started wearing mini-skirts.
Killing terrorists is an acceptable pastime for our military, but I don’t think it should be their main goal. I mean…whatever happened to the Noble Idea of creating the United States of Earth?
Manifest Destiny doesn’t just happen all by itself.
Frank, I have to take issue with this statement:
“Since it is resolved it’s the government’s job to kill terrorists, who in the government should kill them? The I.R.S? Congress? Those nine old people who tell us what the Constitution means? No, I don’t think any of those people are properly equipped to kill terrorists.”
Just because people aren’t properly equipped is no reason that they shouldn’t be allowed to go kill terrorists. In fact, I can’t think of any reason not to send the IRS to go kill terrorists; it’s certainly a better use of their training than allowing them to stay here and tax people.
Hey, screw Rambo.
We need Sherman! Just start in Iraq, move through Iran, Afghanistan, and finally cleaning house in Pakistan. Or start in Pakistan and end up in Saudi Arabia. March to the sea part 2.
I have an idea!
We should give soldiers police authority! That way, when they aren’t at war, we could have hundreds of thousands of extra policemen all around the country. The military should be in charge of police. After all, they’re trained in just what police officers do everyday: handle weapons and kill criminals. Crime would be way down, for sure.
Makes sense, doesn’t it??
Off topic but I owe Glen Reynolds a HT for sending me here. I like it
frank j you are clearly a damn idiot.
“When someone tells you we should bring the troops back, ask him who does he think will then kill the terrorists. When he inevitably gives you a dumb answer, punch him in the face as should be the punishment for answers that are stupid. As is obvious, the U.S. military should kill terrorists.”
christ man. if the troops were killing terrorists in iraq that would be great
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 09/13/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.