Death to liberal terrorists!


I apologize if my sentiment hurts your feelings.  The following is my opinion based upon truth.  It is truth that cowards hide from you.  IMHO.

Firstly:  I am a former soldier.  We take on the bogey man, so children can sleep at night.  Yes, some soldiers break under the pressure.  Yes, some of those who break commit terrible crimes.

The commanders knew some soldiers would break under the stress.  They knew that some soldiers would murder innocent civilians, and LEADERS sent the soldiers in any way.

Secondly:  Soldiers are held accountable for the crimes they commit.  And so should the politicians who sent them in.

Thirdly:  Over the last couple of days, reporters have speculated that French soldiers were behind the recent terror campaign in southern France.  Today, a muslim terrorist was surrounded.  The speculation of those reporters today is shown to be what it really was – falsely inflaming civilian fear of the very soldiers who protect them.  And that false information is a terror campaign artfully conducted by the media.  So, just days after liberal terrorists blamed the terror campaign in France on loyal French soldiers, they must admit a Muslim Terrorist is responsible for killing CHILDREN.

It is time to hold the liberals guilty for the terror that they create.  Especially in the media.

As a former, and loyal, soldier, I am tired of hearing COWARDS call us terrorists.

Legalize duels, and let loyal citizens take out the traitors.

Again, I apologize if my sentiment hurts your feelings.  But, brave men and women made everyone free.  The brave should not be slandered just because we set cowards free.

But, brave soldiers have always pay the price for the freedom of others.

While I was in the Army, we sang while we ran, “Freedom is not free, it is won by the barrel of a gun” (famous US Army Jody). (*)

Leaders know the cost of sending in soldiers.  Leaders determine if the benefits outweigh the costs.  Both failed soldiers and failed leaders should share responsibility for expected civilian casualties.  And lastly, cowardly media, politicians, and liberals should be punished for their treasonous comments.

It is cheap for people to casually blame soldiers for what they are afraid to do.  The protection soldiers provide is an expensive social service that they provide, and the slanderous taunts they endure are unfair.

(*) a Jody is a song sung by warriors as they physically train for combat.


About Wayne

First, I blogged on blogger, then Myspace - soon I was consistently ranked. Next, I quit. Then the blogging addiction came back .... Comments are appreciated. Not nice comments are edited. You can follow me at the top right.
This entry was posted in Leadership, Men, News, Politics, US Army, Women. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Death to liberal terrorists!

  1. Pingback: [VIDEO] The Real America: Terrorists in The Eyes of The World | Practikel

  2. I’m not offended. And you have dodged the point at hand.

    Clearly that is to be expected from you.

    Carry on.

  3. I never accused you of advocating Nietzsche (you missed the point there entirely), but you have most definitely advocated terrorism. You have equated publication of false information with lying and used that as a pretext for judgement. In effect, those that disagree and turn out to be wrong end up on your death list. But of course

    You are in good company with the Taliban, with Al Qaida, and with any number of groups that execute their political enemies.

    • Wayne says:


      I have only told a truth. I believe I forewarned you that it would be difficult and some might be offended.

      Maybe the truth is difficult for you to bear, because you have accused me and men like me of terror.

      I warned you ahead of time, and I apologized ahead of time.

      And now I will tell you, “the truth hurts.”

      But, I did NOT do that to you. Believing their convenient truths instead of searching out the truth left you vulnerable.

      And then when you read truth, you reacted. Painfully, and maybe harshly.

      I am not a terrorist. Nor are my comrades in arms who defend you with their lives and their limbs.

      They lose a lot so you may live.

      So, please, respect their sacrifice and live honorably, and truthfully.



  4. Alien360 says:

    Once I heard on somewhere, “He was a soldier and a brave soldier. Hero for 100 days and just one day he cracked under extreme pressure. But doesn’t those hundred days of heroism count something?”
    Even though foreigner and some one form the east side of the word, I have a respect for soldiers more than most of American liberals.

    • Wayne says:


      It is sad that soldiers are disrespected. But, unfortunately, 100 days of honorable service are wiped out by one hour of dishonor.

      That is the way of the American Army.

      Thank you for your words, and your kindness.


  5. Wayne says:


    No, I did not advocate terrorism. I advocated judgment upon those who cause terror for profit in the name of news, politics, or free speech.

    No reporter, politician, or citizen should fear telling the truth. But, every terrorist should fear spreading their lies to the unsuspecting citizenry. That is what I advocated.

    I have never advocated Nietzsche.


    • It’s always good in these discussions to whip out the old dictionary! Dictionary definitions are essential recon for a proper debate🙂

      “..As a former, and loyal, soldier, I am tired of hearing COWARDS call us terrorists…”

      giving or showing firm and constant support or allegiance to a person or institution

      I would argue that such loyalty does not automatically define you as a terrorist, however I’m sure you would agree that loyalty is absolutely central to the archetypal (stereotypical) terrorist. Both the ‘soldier’ and the ‘terrorist’ share a loyalty to their selected person or institution so strong that they will kill others and/ or themselves if the order is given by those who they are loyal to.

      This begs a question (it’s not an accusation – just a challenging question):

      What is the actual difference between a ‘soldier’ and a ‘terrorist’? And what criteria did you personally use when you joined the armed forces to make sure your own loyalty would make you a soldier and not a terrorist?

      a person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.

      In your comment above you insinuate that anyone who does not sanction the use of violence (ie war) as a means to affect political or social change lacks courage (this also implies that soldiers have a monopoly on courage). However you could easily apply the term ‘courage’ (as defined above) to any civilian population choosing to live their lives in the name of freedom and peace (rather than violence and obedience to a central authority) and as a consequence of this choice to live peacefully to endure any threat of violence (whether real or imagined) or any acts of violence (such as the occasional bomb or whatever) by others.

      “No, I did not advocate terrorism”

      the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

      According to this dictionary definition all military action is terrorism. Please feel free to argue why this is not the case. Here is my argument:

      Invading Iraq for regime change is ‘the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims’. Whether or not Saddam Hussein was nice guy or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that invading a sovereign nation like Iraq, murdering its leader and hundreds of thousands of its civilian population is still a violation of the GC. It is the very definition of a war crime, genocide, illegal occupation. Blair was recently found guilty of war crimes in a recent war crimes tribunal in Malaysia.

      Those who support the bombing of countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya usually excuse it by saying that violence and bloodshed is never preferable, but in these particular cases the ‘greater good’ demands it. But isn’t that what every terrorist says also?

      And while we are talking definitions let’s look at another term we hear so much about these days….. The excuse that led to the illegal invasion of 2003 – that Saddam Hussein and his government were conspiring in secret to amass WMD’s and that he posed a credible and immediate (45 minute) threat to the west – was the very definition of a ‘conspiracy theory’.

      This particular conspiracy theory was, as we all know, proven to be a complete fantasy. Not only was it untrue but this unfounded government conspiracy theory of WMD’s has led to the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and has devastated a whole region socially, economically and environmentally – destruction which is still ongoing to this day.

      The only loyalty that is good is loyalty to the truth. History is full of men being loyal to central authorities with violence and bloodshed being the result. Truth is not what some central authority tells us to believe, truth is that which complies with REASON and EVIDENCE.

      More on terrorism…

  6. No, you just advocate terrorism while pretending to fight it.

  7. “When fighting monsters, take care that you do not become one yourself. When gazing into the darkness, the darkness always looks back at you.” – Nietzsche.

    • Wayne says:

      Nietzsche, the author of so much of the last century’s darkness …. I never like looking into darkness with him. That would give me chills.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s