'The war on terror' - the first pc war in human history, against an enemy ('islam') not to be named

[Michael Laudahn eOpposition]

*Message and author protected by the 1st amendment (free speech) and similar
constitutional provisions. Violations of this provision through actions by
judiciary and other government criminals will be prosecuted as soon as
conditions permit.*

'Catch-as-catch-can' like in WW1, WW2 or post-WW2 conflicts is a thing of
the past. Just like 'Shoot first, ask questions later'.

Today, when under enemy fire, you consult human rights conventions, to make
sure you don't react where jurists wouldn't want you to react - or don't
overreact, where jurists could deem your actions as 'excessive'.

The question remains: What do jurists know about fighting a war - or of the
real world, generally speaking? They are not even capable to condemn
mohammedan criminals here to adequate punishments. Also: Can you win a war
if you 'fight' like that, especially if your enemy doesn't even know what pc
means?

Call me outfashioned, but against a savage and primitive enemy in large
numbers like Mohammedanistan, I still consider nuclear force the adequate
choice. And never mind the colateral damages.

--
Unter blinden ist der ein�ugige k�nig. >.)

Repatriate all exotic intruders: jews > Israel, mohammedans >
Mohammedanistan, negros > Africa, indians + gipsies > India, etc !

Then dismantle all surveillance technology !!

Politicians: I want my country back - this is an order by the sovereign !!!