Should US/UK attack ISIS in Iraq?

[Armistead]

Seems Iraq is going to hell fast.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2655977/ISIS-militants-march-Baghdad-trademark-bullet-head-gets-way-control-north.html.

[skidman]

Seems Iraq is going to hell fast.

Disinformation. This case has been dealt with back in 2003:

http://photo.sf.co.ua/g/141/49.jpg

[Pisces]

What's this doing in the SH4 section? Surely you know where the General Topics are.

[Jimbuna]

Thread moved.

[Oberon]

http://media.fukung.net/imgs/GG%20Nextmap%20Bush.jpg

I think that if the US wants to keep Iran down and its influence in the Middle East up, then it might not have a choice but to intervene.
The UK probably won't though, we just don't have the resources to do so, and most of our focus is in Europe now post-Crimea.

[Flamebatter90]

1. Yes, you (The coalition) are responsible for the state Iraq is in now.
2. Coalition: Not our business.
3. Go back to 1
4. Go back to 2
5. etc.

[Oberon]

1. Yes, you (The coalition) are responsible for the state Iraq is in now.
2. Coalition: Not our business.
3. Go back to 1
4. Go back to 2
5. etc.

If [invadednation] = disorder goto sleep [repeat x99]

[Skybird]

Chuck Norris for president. http://www.buddy-icons.info/img/smile/1674.gif (http://www.buddy-icons.info/aim-smiles/Yawn_Smiley.html)

[Flamebatter90]

Honestly, if I'd have the power, I'd appoint Jesse Ventura as the next POTUS. Just to see what happens. :)

[Wolferz]

Honestly, if I'd have the power, I'd appoint Jesse Ventura as the next POTUS. Just to see what happens. :)

He'd wear himself out body slamming all the idiots in DC.:haha:

[Flamebatter90]

He'd wear himself out body slamming all the idiots in DC.:haha:
He'd have a mental breakdown the moment he realises there are no conspiracies. :O:

[Dread Knot]

There will likely be no US ground troops sent. Iraq's Foreign Minister says no there one is yet calling for American troops in Iraq. And of all options currently on the table, it's the only one that the Obama administration has explicitly nixed.

You can send airstrikes, but it can be difficult to wipe out an insurgency from above, especially if militants blend into the civilian population. You are going to have ample PR opportunities for ISIS if airstrikes go awry and kill civilians. And if a pilot goes down, it's heavy ransom time.

You can send arms and money but the Iraqi Army is badly led, seems to suffer from poor morale and is not particularly competent. Already, militants have been able to pick up millions of dollars of US weaponry, vehicles and other goods on its swift sweep of northern Iraq. You might just be sending them more.

So maybe the best option is to send in the drones and play the endless game of whack-a-mole from the skies. But it seems like no matter now many you kill, there are always more.

[Jimbuna]

Neither Britain or the US have the stomach or in the case of Britain, the resources.

The Us could use air strikes and cruise missile assetts but I think it will be a wait and see game now that Iran has sent troops in and the balance is gradually being reported to being righted in the Iraqi favour.

[Armistead]

OOPs, thanks for moving Jim. I don't think I had my coffee yet when posting.

[TarJak]

Drones

[nikimcbee]

Honestly, if I'd have the power, I'd appoint Jesse Ventura as the next POTUS. Just to see what happens. :)

1. Politics would be a lot more entertaining.
2. If he's truely independent, he'll unite the republicrats.

[Oberon]

Ace Ventura would get my vote... :yep:

[Wolferz]

I think we've all had our fill of Islamapalooza. If Al Qaeda takes over the whole country, it might be time to build the100' wall around it and fill it with water. That or drop a few nukes on the joint:huh: We can still get the oil out via Kuwait.:up:

[Oberon]

We can still get the oil out via Kuwait.:up:

Kuwait would look like this by that point:

http://www.psywarrior.com/OilFireLake001x.jpg

[Stealhead]

Hmm someone is lying me thinks Iran is Shi'a so they benefit if Iraq has a Shi'a majority it would not be in Iran's interest to support pro Sunni insurgents at all.

http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-alarmed-iraq-iran-open-shared-role-u-090305368.html

[vienna]

The whole situation is just a continuance of the mess Dubbya created when he tried to show his pappy he had a pair; this is Dubbya's legacy and that of Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al...


<O>

[nikimcbee]

Hannity was going absolutely crazy yesterday.

I think it's time we do my plan for fixing Islamic violence.

You make a list of the 10 most holiest sites in islam.
Then issue an ultimatum to the greater Islamic world:
Any Islamic caused terror after today (don't care what it is), site #10 gets a 2000lbs bomb dropped on it.

We work our way down the list down the list until the violence stops.

The idea is that the violent imams realize we're done with their violence and they stop (they don't want Mecca vapo(u)rized) or the believers rise up and overthrow the violent imams. Hopefully, the choose peace before Mecca, Dome of the Rock, etc are turned into a giant crater.

So, the problem will be self correcting. If they don't figure out what's happening, Mecca will make for one heck of a koi pond, or we just found a new place to dump our nuclear waste. Glow for allah?

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

^ Yeah because there's no possible way that, that plan could go horribly wrong.:doh:

[mapuc]

My thought of a scenario

On ground Iraqi troops with help from Iran and maybe Turkey

And air support from USA/NATO

Markus

[Oberon]

Hannity was going absolutely crazy yesterday.

I think it's time we do my plan for fixing Islamic violence.

You make a list of the 10 most holiest sites in islam.
Then issue an ultimatum to the greater Islamic world:
Any Islamic caused terror after today (don't care what it is), site #10 gets a 2000lbs bomb dropped on it.

We work our way down the list down the list until the violence stops.

The idea is that the violent imams realize we're done with their violence and they stop (they don't want Mecca vapo(u)rized) or the believers rise up and overthrow the violent imams. Hopefully, the choose peace before Mecca, Dome of the Rock, etc are turned into a giant crater.

So, the problem will be self correcting. If they don't figure out what's happening, Mecca will make for one heck of a koi pond, or we just found a new place to dump our nuclear waste. Glow for allah?

:hmmm:

That's an absolutely fantastic idea...

If you don't fancy living in any American city for the next century.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/10/105634/3842006-destroyedsite.jpg

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Hannity was going absolutely crazy yesterday.

I think it's time we do my plan for fixing Islamic violence.

You make a list of the 10 most holiest sites in islam.
Then issue an ultimatum to the greater Islamic world:
Any Islamic caused terror after today (don't care what it is), site #10 gets a 2000lbs bomb dropped on it.

We work our way down the list down the list until the violence stops.

The idea is that the violent imams realize we're done with their violence and they stop (they don't want Mecca vapo(u)rized) or the believers rise up and overthrow the violent imams. Hopefully, the choose peace before Mecca, Dome of the Rock, etc are turned into a giant crater.

So, the problem will be self correcting. If they don't figure out what's happening, Mecca will make for one heck of a koi pond, or we just found a new place to dump our nuclear waste. Glow for allah?Do I smell little bit of parody here? :hmmm: Anyway step #0 would propably require nuking every corner of Earth with anything remotely to do with Islam. So I don't see this as very feasible plan...

[Nippelspanner]

Should US/UK attack ISIS in Iraq? I think US/UK should stfu for a while, really.

http://i.gyazo.com/96f37ae9311c5f5b5f547d1a8234f8ad.png

[STEED]

^Wish I saw that when Blair was my PM I would have sent him a copy.

[Platapus]

The whole situation is just a continuance of the mess Dubbya created when he tried to show his pappy he had a pair; this is Dubbya's legacy and that of Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al...


<O>

Yeah, but Obama has his spoor on it too. Both of them will rightly have this on their legacies.

[nikimcbee]

I think US/UK should stfu for a while, really.

http://i.gyazo.com/96f37ae9311c5f5b5f547d1a8234f8ad.png


:up:

[nikimcbee]

:hmmm:

That's an absolutely fantastic idea...

If you don't fancy living in any American city for the next century.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/10/105634/3842006-destroyedsite.jpg

Posting pictures of Detroit doesn't count.

[Oberon]

Posting pictures of Detroit doesn't count.

http://www.sezession.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Touche.gif

[Armistead]

:up:

Most of us feel that way, but this is really a situation we shouldn't. I was against the Iraq war from the beginning, but it would be a bigger blunder to do nothing now. All the experts said it would be a mistake to leave Iraq. Amazing this small uprising turned into this, because we had no real intel there. The Iraqi people love and hate us in many ways, but to abandon millions to suffer from ISIS...we will get the blame and they will turn against us.

Jihadist don't hate us because of our influence in that region, they hate us and anyone that doesn't support their views. They are at war with the world and want to bring it to a end. They would love to see Sharia law worldwide. Scary as it is, over 30% of Muslims in moderate nations like the UK want Sharia law. As far as the region, the fact is most nations want us there, they want our protection, trade, etc..

If this is not stopped and controlled in Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, ec... could be next in line. Gas is already going up and could easily hit 5-$6 in the US should it not end soon and ISIS gets control of the oil fields.

It should've never happened, we should've see this coming, but we had no eyes on the ground. I think with intel, drones, limited airstrikes we could at least hold ground and turn the tide. The US built a billion dollar embassy there, it's a fortress. We shouldn't leave and give it to the enemy.

[Tribesman]

They would love to see Sharia law worldwide. Scary as it is, over 30% of Muslims in moderate nations like the UK want Sharia law.
What is scary is people saying that.
If you take ISIS version and Gdaffys version and look at them together you wouldn't think they were related to each other, yet both are sharia.
Now if you took the "30%" versions and looked at them comparison to the two versions from the fruitcakes you wouldn't think they were from the same planet.
So what is scary is people taking ISIS vesion of sharia and taking the 30%s hundreds of different versions of sharia and portraying them as the same thing.

[Armistead]

What is scary is people saying that.
If you take ISIS version and Gdaffys version and look at them together you wouldn't think they were related to each other, yet both are sharia.
Now if you took the "30%" versions and looked at them comparison to the two versions from the fruitcakes you wouldn't think they were from the same planet.
So what is scary is people taking ISIS vesion of sharia and taking the 30%s hundreds of different versions of sharia and portraying them as the same thing.

Those that follow Sharia for the most start still share the same goals of radical Islam, many act on it and it's getting worse. Just look what this few percent you claim have done in the last few decades.

Scarier when all the experts say a nuke attack in a major US city in the next 20 years is about 50%.

[Tribesman]

Those that follow Sharia for the most start still share the same goals of radical Islam
Really?
Are you serious?
How is it that these small groups spend nearly all their time slaughtering other muslims?
Strange shared goal isn't it, if they had the same goal there wouldn't be a very small minority trying to force their version onto the vast majority.
It would be the other way round wouldn't it

Scarier when all the experts say a nuke attack in a major US city in the next 20 years is about 50%.
You are old enough to remember when experts told you that a nuke attack was inevitable?
50% is a great improvement on a definite certainty.

[CptSimFreak]

Disinformation. This case has been dealt with back in 2003:

http://photo.sf.co.ua/g/141/49.jpg


Oh it gets better.... ISIS is getting supplied by Obama administration. I guess bombing it by Bush father/son wasn't enough.

[Tribesman]

Oh it gets better.... ISIS is getting supplied by Obama administration. I guess bombing it by Bush father/son wasn't enough.

That's interesting. The licence for supply only covers the FSA and is specific in prohibiting support of ISIS and Al Nusra.
So unless you have some special secret information what you are claiming is the same as saying Churchill supplied the Nazis as they captured British equipment at Dunkirk:hmmm:

[Armistead]

Really?
Are you serious?
How is it that these small groups spend nearly all their time slaughtering other muslims?
Strange shared goal isn't it, if they had the same goal there wouldn't be a very small minority trying to force their version onto the vast majority.
It would be the other way round wouldn't it


You are old enough to remember when experts told you that a nuke attack was inevitable?
50% is a great improvement on a definite certainty.

No, but we know people that have your mindset think things like 911 just don't happen.

[Skybird]

German newspaper brought it to the point with a headline today:

"Obama hat sich um seine Relevanz gequatscht".

Not sure how to translate that precisely: Obama yaked/piffled so much that he lost all relevance.

[Tribesman]

No, but we know people that have your mindset think things like 911 just don't happen.

Could you have written anything more stupid?
Do you need reminding that I lost family that day?
Do you need reminding that I also lost family in '98 and they feature in a rather nice video as miraculously being US British German and Israeli spies before getting their head cut off by some rather pleasant extremists?
So really, could you have written anything more stupid if you tried really hard?

edit to add. now I expect some people will say that response in insulting, but the post by Armistead is just about as insulting and ignorant as is humanly possible

[Armistead]

Could you have written anything more stupid?
Do you need reminding that I lost family that day?
Do you need reminding that I also lost family in '98 and they feature in a rather nice video as miraculously being US British German and Israeli spies before getting their head cut off by some rather pleasant extremists?
So really, could you have written anything more stupid if you tried really hard?

edit to add. now I expect some people will say that response in insulting, but the post by Armistead is just about as insulting and ignorant as is humanly possible

I don't find it insulting and I doubt anyone else will either. People usually attack when they realize they have no argument. You can continue to diminish how terrible groups like ISIS are and that we should mind our own business, but most see what is happening around the world and know better..

I lost my Uncle Paul in tower 2, so I know of loss there as well. That should remind us both of how radical groups like ISIS are and why we need to stop them from gaining power anywhere.

Hopefully Obama is waking up and the carrier being sent there isn't just for show. Hopefully even his stupid ass can see abandoning Iraq at this point was a big mistake. If not, we'll all be paying double for gas and going into another major war in the next several years..

If you don't have a problem with a liberal atheist, Sam Harris puts Islam in perspective for you. Just 5 minutes, but the last 3 are worth it....simple, but true...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaEbcm64_Mo

[Tribesman]

People usually attack when they realize they have no argument. So you realised you had no argument?
You had nothing to counter the points raised and instead launched into a silly attack.:oops:

You can continue to diminish how terrible groups like ISIS Are you determined to keep talking absolute rubbish?
Can you point out anything at any time where I have diminished how terrible fundamentalist extremists are?
You are the one who diminishes it by lumping the worlds muslim population in with the nuts.

and that we should mind our own business Where?
Are you sure you have enough straw to stuff those dummies with?

but most see what is happening around the world and know better.. You are displaying that you have a problem seeing anything much and instead are simply imagining things.
That implies that you don't know much, let alone know better.

If you don't have a problem with a liberal atheist, Sam Harris puts Islam in perspective for you. Just 5 minutes, but the last 3 are worth it....simple, but true...
Not bad, a few very simple mistakes, a couple of large generalisations and a handy dose of double standards, but overall not bad.

[August]

Honestly, if I'd have the power, I'd appoint Jesse Ventura as the next POTUS. Just to see what happens. :)

God help us if that idiot ever became leader of the free world.

[Flamebatter90]

God help us if that idiot ever became leader of the free world.
Oh come on, it'd be fun... for awhile. :)

[Armistead]

So you realised you had no argument?
You had nothing to counter the points raised and instead launched into a silly attack.:oops:

Are you determined to keep talking absolute rubbish?
Can you point out anything at any time where I have diminished how terrible fundamentalist extremists are?
You are the one who diminishes it by lumping the worlds muslim population in with the nuts.

Where?
Are you sure you have enough straw to stuff those dummies with?

You are displaying that you have a problem seeing anything much and instead are simply imagining things.
That implies that you don't know much, let alone know better.

Not bad, a few very simple mistakes, a couple of large generalisations and a handy dose of double standards, but overall not bad.

You haven't made a point that makes much sense, except they're different versions of Sharia law, Sharia lite so to speak, as if that version is a good thing. The fact is those people simply don't follow the Koran, but even at that moderate Islam{if such exist} that supports Sharia lite is still morally incorrupt on so many levels. Most of these still believe women have no rights, they believe in killing of gays and they believe it's OK to kill apostates. Most polls in moderate nations show 20% believe suicide bombing is OK. We all know the end goal of Islam, to rule the world and make all nations and people submit to Islam or if they won't submit, they will one day be forced to do so. No Muslim is promised paradise unless they die as a Martyr in a Holy War.

For the most part moderate peaceful Islam only exist in nations that are secular and the majority of the people are educated and democratic. They are forced to live under secular law. Where true Islam rules, it's mass war, brutality, poverty and chaos. It's time we call it for what it is...evil in all forms and start honestly dealing with it as a world. The fact that most Muslims are killed by other Muslims show us how evil and corrupt it is. The ME and several other regions are exploding and imploding.

There's only one way to deal with Jihadist....kill them or be killed by them. It's a war they will always fight and until we make it so terrible that it's not worth it. For our leaders to keep saying these nuts have jacked a peaceful religion and Islam is really good, ignores the truth about what Islam is all about...

Ending, Obama has made a terrible mistake in Iraq. We must eliminate ISIS and whatever radical form comes next.

[eddie]

Maybe we could take proper care of our wounded from the first war in Iraq before we get involved in another one! Why don't the Iraqi's clean up their own mess, if they want freedom bad enough, they will fight for it instead of running away.

[Armistead]

Maybe we could take proper care of our wounded from the first war in Iraq before we get involved in another one! Why don't the Iraqi's clean up their own mess, if they want freedom bad enough, they will fight for it instead of running away.

It seems the security forces dissolved, but now masses of people are rising up. Iran is also getting involved, which may be a good thing short term, but bad thing long term. ISIS first threats of taking Baghdad is massive suicide bombers and that seems to be happening.

If this isn't stopped, it could be explosive for the entire region and spread into bordering nations. Since in the US we don't use our energy sources as we should, I don't look forward to oil prices tripling. I hope the next time we go to war, we take over the govt and run it until a secular re-indoctrination of of a few generations can take place.

It goes back to my original belief, it takes a dictator like Saddam to keep a nation like Iraq in control.

[Stealhead]

There's only one way to deal with Jihadist....kill them or be killed by them. It's a war they will always fight and until we make it so terrible that it's not worth it. For our leaders to keep saying these nuts have jacked a peaceful religion and Islam is really good, ignores the truth about what Islam is all about...

Ending, Obama has made a terrible mistake in Iraq. We must eliminate ISIS and whatever radical form comes next.

A never ending war then you will always have to fight especially considering that an idea can never be destroyed someone will always follow.And seeing as the most dedicated have no real issue with death you really can not make the idea of fighting so horrible that they wish not to fight in the first place.

Any religion can be skewed to promote a violent mindset it is not a unique feature of Islam.

If all or even a majority of Muslims agreed with the agenda we would not be having this conversation right now. There currently around 1.57 billion Muslims in the world about 23% of the earths population things would be much much worse.

[Armistead]

A never ending war then you will always have to fight especially considering that an idea can never be destroyed someone will always follow.And seeing as the most dedicated have no real issue with death you really can not make the idea of fighting so horrible that they wish not to fight in the first place.

Any religion can be skewed to promote a violent mindset it is not a unique feature of Islam.

If all or even a majority of Muslims agreed with the agenda we would not be having this conversation right now. There currently around 1.57 billion Muslims in the world about 23% of the earths population things would be much much worse.

The problem is because they believe basically the same thing, moderate Islam isn't influencing the radicals. I wish it was as simple to let them kill each other, but the goal is much more than that. The bigger problem is them getting their hands on WMD's and experts agree they will.

It doesn't take a majority, it only takes a few percent of those billions...do that math.

Most other religions have a few nuts, but name one that has a violent mindset like Islam with millions? Name another religion that's killing, enslaving, bombing daily. How many states are run by a religious law other than Islam? When was the last time you worried about Christians, Amish, Buddhist bombing daily, chopping off heads, stoning women, etc.?

It's good millions that confess Islam that don't follow the Koran, but the bigger question is if radical Islam starts taking hold...how hard will moderates complain and fight back?

No, it would take a complete world effort to deal with Islam, but only if it accepts what the true nature of Islam is. Maybe one day it will secularize like other religions, but not if we don't terminate groups like ISIS.

[TarJak]

Most other religions have a few nuts, but name one that has a violent mindset like Islam with millions? Name another religion that's killing, enslaving, bombing daily. How many states are run by a religious law other than Islam?
I think we did that question to death in another thread. Christianity's record far outstrips any other religion. Even in modern times. Think of all the death and destruction wrought by the US and her allies, Australia included, and Christian killings are still number one in dealing death and destruction to other religions.

It's good millions that confess Islam that don't follow the Koran, but the bigger question is if radical Islam starts taking hold...how hard will moderates complain and fight back?

No, it would take a complete world effort to deal with Islam, but only if it accepts what the true nature of Islam is. Maybe one day it will secularize like other religions, but not if we don't terminate groups like ISIS.

Not wanting to do a Godwin, but the second half of your post is remarkably similar to the arguments used in 1933 Germany.

[Tribesman]

You haven't made a point that makes much sense No, I have made points that you are unable to comprehend.
Big difference.

except they're different versions of Sharia law, Sharia lite so to speak Not so to speak, sharia law and sharia law...and hundreds of thousands of different versions which are all still sharia law..
You throw out the word sharia in your argument without comprehending what it is you are talking about.

The fact is those people simply don't follow the Koran Errrrr....no, those people follow their interpretation of an ancient contradictory text, just like Christians do.

Most of these still believe women have no rights, they believe in killing of gays and they believe it's OK to kill apostates Do they really? Sounds like the "christian" extreme right:rotfl2:
Isn't that contradictory to sharia?:smug:

Most polls in moderate nations show 20% believe suicide bombing is OK. And you think it is not?
Circumstances my dear, its very easy to think of circumstances when sacrificing your life is considered OK.
If you want to mention "polls" mention the actual question.

We all know the end goal of Islam, to rule the world and make all nations and people submit to Islam or if they won't submit, they will one day be forced to do so Do we?:rotfl2:

No Muslim is promised paradise unless they die as a Martyr in a Holy War. Ah martyrdom, like the saints.
But hey what about the promise of paradise for mercy and forgiveness?:hmmm:
So are you making stuff up or are you simply talking out of ignorance?
Personally I think you are just repeating rubbish you have heard.

For the most part moderate peaceful Islam only exist in nations that are secular and the majority of the people are educated and democratic. You mean like Bangladesh?:doh:

Where true Islam rules, it's mass war, brutality, poverty and chaos. No, where modern fundamentalist islam has a foothold that is the case.

t's time we call it for what it is...evil in all forms and start honestly dealing with it as a world. Yet you call it for what it isn't, which is why you can't deal with it.

The fact that most Muslims are killed by other Muslims show us how evil and corrupt it is. Sorry, that makes no sense.

There's only one way to deal with Jihadist....kill them or be killed by them Do you even know what a jihadist is?
It certainly appears not.

It's a war they will always fight and until we make it so terrible that it's not worth it. Surely with the extremist fundamentalist nuts there is nothing that can be made so terrible.
You appear to be lacking in joined up thinking.


For our leaders to keep saying these nuts have jacked a peaceful religion and Islam is really good, ignores the truth about what Islam is all about...
I am afraid that you have shown you don't know what it is all about.
On second thoughts I would go as far as to say that you have shown that you know very little about it at all.

@Stealhead.
Nicely put.:up:

[HunterICX]

You haven't made a point that makes much sense, except they're different versions of Sharia law, Sharia lite so to speak, as if that version is a good thing. The fact is those people simply don't follow the Koran, but even at that moderate Islam{if such exist} that supports Sharia lite is still morally incorrupt on so many levels.

Nor does this make any sense whatsoever...
First of all there's no Sharia lite, there's Sharia.


Most of these still believe women have no rights, they believe in killing of gays and they believe it's OK to kill apostates.It's a common human trait to be a prejudice bastard, not just reserved for Muslims.

Most polls in moderate nations show 20% believe suicide bombing is OK.They sure know where to look to get the right results for their biased media outlet

We all know the end goal of Islam, to rule the world and make all nations and people submit to Islam or if they won't submit, they will one day be forced to do so. No Muslim is promised paradise unless they die as a Martyr in a Holy War.Where true Islam rules, it's mass war, brutality, poverty and chaos. It's time we call it for what it is...evil in all forms and start honestly dealing with it as a world. The fact that most Muslims are killed by other Muslims show us how evil and corrupt it is. The ME and several other regions are exploding and imploding.Pope Urban II is that you?

There's only one way to deal with Jihadist....kill them or be killed by them. It's a war they will always fight and until we make it so terrible that it's not worth it. For our leaders to keep saying these nuts have jacked a peaceful religion and Islam is really good, ignores the truth about what Islam is all about...I think you're the one that ignores the truth and know little to nothing what the Islam is about.

Ending, Obama has made a terrible mistake in Iraq. We must eliminate ISIS and whatever radical form comes next.Errr.....

It goes back to my original belief, it takes a dictator like Saddam to keep a nation like Iraq in control. So why blame Obama for what Bush has removed who you believed could keep Iraq in check?

[Oberon]

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-cfSpo1mz2pw/UswmMWTPokI/AAAAAAAAUoU/Gt6UEE-92kw/w620-h461/crusades%2Bhello%2Bsir.jpg

[Armistead]

I think we did that question to death in another thread. Christianity's record far outstrips any other religion. Even in modern times. Think of all the death and destruction wrought by the US and her allies, Australia included, and Christian killings are still number one in dealing death and destruction to other religions.



Not wanting to do a Godwin, but the second half of your post is remarkably similar to the arguments used in 1933 Germany.

How about some facts where modern Christianity is equal to Islam in acts of terror? Certainly all religions were brutal in times past, but most have secularized in the last 100 years.

"In 2013, eighteen countries suffered the lethal results of suicide terrorism. Some 291 suicide bombings were carried out, causing approximately 3,100 deaths. This figure represents a 25 percent increase in the number of attacks over the same period the previous year (230)."

That's one year....let's see how Christianity compares to that with your upcoming facts...

You remember that Danish cartoon, do you remember the reaction of Muslims in moderate nations, the riots, the deaths...When was the last time you saw Christians or Buddhist react like this over the constant insults of their beliefs or saviors?

ISIS is considered worse of radical groups...You think we should let them have at it, take Baghdad?

I guess you're against all the drone attacks in places like Yemen taking out terrorist? The fact is we are killing terrorist daily and should continue to do so...

My point in war is if you are going to war against a mindset, more than people, you must change the mindset. Much like our CW in America, why do you think the South changed, because war was made so terrible, the South gave up generations of cultural thinking. As Sherman said, don't try to refine it, war is hell. Look what we did to Japan...same thing and we occupied and basically wrote them a constitution and forced a change of life they had to accept. We use to war and demand unconditional surrender of our enemies. On the other hand, this is why war should be the very last option and as I said, I think Iraq was a blunder. I never jumped on that Bush bandwagon... In all these ME wars, what do we do...we leave long before any stability and create vacuums that are filled by even worse players.....It's time we either stay out or do what is needed. It's time to stop worrying about so called moderate Muslims in how we deal with the true beliefs of Islam.

[Dread Knot]

I am ambivalent as to what the best course of action in Iraq by outside parties might be, and if any choice is likely to produce lasting and meaningful results. There are so many interests involved, that any outsider is likely to find that allies they had going in, suddenly become sworn enemies, or at least tactical opponents on the turn of a dime.

If the situation makes the Shiites stronger, soon there will be a push-back by all the Sunni regimes in the area, as well as Israel, fearful of a newly strengthened Hezbollah. But by weakening ISIS at this juncture, other radical elements will be strengthened, and pose a same or similar threat in future. Back to playing Whack-a-mole.

As in Syria, the conflict is so intertwined with civilian populations that any actions, even those deemed "surgical," are likely to kill as many innocents as combatants, if not more. This can only deepen resentments against the US, for example, as a cold and distant killer if airstrikes alone are the answer. Only troops on the ground have the potential for the kind of combat that must be undertaken, but that goes back to the issue of having no true local allies, and the inevitable terror attacks on troops by all.

It seems that outsiders are damned if they do intervene, and damned if they don't, but between the two choices, only the latter one offers fewer of our own and collateral deaths. I don't see any easy choices going forward.

[Oberon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4772142.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_civilian_casualti es

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3254

http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619

So, approx 60k dead from militant Islam, and approx 113k dead from a war started by leaders who 'prayed to God'. :hmmm:

[TarJak]

How about some facts where modern Christianity is equal to Islam in acts of terror? Certainly all religions were brutal in times past, but most have secularized in the last 100 years.

"In 2013, eighteen countries suffered the lethal results of suicide terrorism. Some 291 suicide bombings were carried out, causing approximately 3,100 deaths. This figure represents a 25 percent increase in the number of attacks over the same period the previous year (230)."

That's one year....let's see how Christianity compares to that with your upcoming facts...

You remember that Danish cartoon, do you remember the reaction of Muslims in moderate nations, the riots, the deaths...When was the last time you saw Christians or Buddhist react like this over the constant insults of their beliefs or saviors?

ISIS is considered worse of radical groups...You think we should let them have at it, take Baghdad?

I guess you're against all the drone attacks in places like Yemen taking out terrorist? The fact is we are killing terrorist daily and should continue to do so...

My point in war is if you are going to war against a mindset, more than people, you must change the mindset. Much like our CW in America, why do you think the South changed, because war was made so terrible, the South gave up generations of cultural thinking. As Sherman said, don't try to refine it, war is hell. Look what we did to Japan...same thing and we occupied and basically wrote them a constitution and forced a change of life they had to accept. We use to war and demand unconditional surrender of our enemies. On the other hand, this is why war should be the very last option and as I said, I think Iraq was a blunder. I never jumped on that Bush bandwagon... In all these ME wars, what do we do...we leave long before any stability and create vacuums that are filled by even worse players.....It's time we either stay out or do what is needed. It's time to stop worrying about so called moderate Muslims in how we deal with the true beliefs of Islam.

You've provided one of the examples already. Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan 2001-2014, are the recent more "organised" religious wars.

As for acts of terrorism about 10 seconds of Google comes up with this list:

Central African Republic 2013
India in various smaller incidents in the following states:
Tripura 1999-2001
Odisha 2004-2008
Nagaland 1990-2014
Manipur 1992-1993

Lebanon 1975-1990
Northern Ireland Late 1960's-1998
Uganda 2005
USA 1915-Present day - read up on the KKK, anit-abortion terrorism in the US, Hutaree, Christian Milita


Happy to keep going if that list isn't enough to keep you going. In terms of numbers of deaths I think you'll find the first 3 and Northern Ireland far and away outstrip anything the Islamic fundies have thrown at anyone in recent years, though the Palestinian conflicts would come pretty close if they were all toted up. Look it up and check the facts on both sides before throwing rocks at an entire religion from inside your glass house. (Oberon: Thanks for the numbers in your links.)

As for what I'm against, its prejudice in all its forms from whomever it comes from. Drone strikes don't come into it. I don't think we should get involved in Iraq now, just as I didn't in 1990 or 2001.

[Dread Knot]

My point in war is if you are going to war against a mindset, more than people, you must change the mindset. Much like our CW in America, why do you think the South changed, because war was made so terrible, the South gave up generations of cultural thinking. As Sherman said, don't try to refine it, war is hell. Look what we did to Japan...same thing and we occupied and basically wrote them a constitution and forced a change of life they had to accept. We use to war and demand unconditional surrender of our enemies.

To achieve that sort of conventional winner-take-all victory you would literally have to conquer and subjugate the entire Middle East and a good portion of North Africa to boot. Groups like ISIS can always find a border to retreat across and set up shop again. Or find a safe haven in a failed or failing nation with vast swathes of lawless zones, like Somalia, Syria, Libya or Afghanistan (or the Sinai for that matter). There seems to be no lack of rich Arab Gulf states that will fund their favorite faction to the hilt and weapons are always easy to pick up on the world market.

Just ask the Israelis. They chased the PLO in one form or another for decades. It just moved or it morphed.

[Tribesman]

How about some facts where modern Christianity is equal to Islam in acts of terror? Certainly all religions were brutal in times past, but most have secularized in the last 100 years.

"In 2013, eighteen countries suffered the lethal results of suicide terrorism. Some 291 suicide bombings were carried out, causing approximately 3,100 deaths. This figure represents a 25 percent increase in the number of attacks over the same period the previous year (230)."

That's one year....let's see how Christianity compares to that with your upcoming facts...

You remember that Danish cartoon, do you remember the reaction of Muslims in moderate nations, the riots, the deaths...When was the last time you saw Christians or Buddhist react like this over the constant insults of their beliefs or saviors?

ISIS is considered worse of radical groups...You think we should let them have at it, take Baghdad?

I guess you're against all the drone attacks in places like Yemen taking out terrorist? The fact is we are killing terrorist daily and should continue to do so...

My point in war is if you are going to war against a mindset, more than people, you must change the mindset. Much like our CW in America, why do you think the South changed, because war was made so terrible, the South gave up generations of cultural thinking. As Sherman said, don't try to refine it, war is hell. Look what we did to Japan...same thing and we occupied and basically wrote them a constitution and forced a change of life they had to accept. We use to war and demand unconditional surrender of our enemies. On the other hand, this is why war should be the very last option and as I said, I think Iraq was a blunder. I never jumped on that Bush bandwagon... In all these ME wars, what do we do...we leave long before any stability and create vacuums that are filled by even worse players.....It's time we either stay out or do what is needed. It's time to stop worrying about so called moderate Muslims in how we deal with the true beliefs of Islam.
Well two people have already trashed most of that.
They did it without even using some of the more obvious examples too.

A few points worth noting though.

You think we should let them have at it, take Baghdad?

I guess you're against all the drone attacks in places like Yemen taking out terrorist?
Are those strawmen you are trying to build again?
Though on the second you may have a point, not the point you want to have but an important little major detail, a detail the US military noted during their planning phase before Afghanistan.
A detail that they chose to ignore and paid the price for, and are still paying the price for.

You remember that Danish cartoon
Yes, bit of a damp squid wasn't it.
It took a lot of effort and even the drawing of their own offensive cartoons to get a big reaction didn't it.
So when you say remember do you mean forget and just remember little bits to fit your narrative?

My point in war is if you are going to war against a mindset, more than people, you must change the mindset.
And where you go wrong is by attacking the people instead of the mindset. You misidentify your target which is why you are guaranteed to miss.

I understand your rage and understand your viewpoint, but your oversimplification and glaring basic errors mean that I understand how your viewpoint is not only unquestionably wrong but is also counterproductive.

[MH]

From arthicle posted by Oberon

Yes, most of the victims of Islamic terror are Muslim, yet there is very little outrage on the part of the Islamic world to terror, relative to, say, a Muhammad cartoon or an "insult to Islam" by a public figure. What does this tell us about the priorities of Islam? In fact, sympathies for terrorists run much higher than many people realize. Even those that do truly disagree with violence (and there are many) somehow avoid taking any sort of responsibility for ending it by convincing themselves that it has nothing to do with Islam. Obviously it has everything to do with Islam, and the unwillingness on the part of Muslims in the West to provide moral leadership against Islamic extremism will ensure that the terror continues for a long time This is the key problem with Islam and reason for most of the things that are happening in ME and rest of the world.
There seem to be lack of sufficient theologically motivated opposition.
Question is why?
So far Muslims from the west...UK and Germany and others are traveling to Syria to fight for Islamic state.
Some of them are second or third generation and don't even know Arabic but have no problem fining spiritual guide.
There those leaders calling for jihad and those who avoid the issue. Opposition is very weak and irrelevant....might be a matter of theological gymnastics which is more tricky to follow...less straight forward.

[HunterICX]

I guess you're against all the drone attacks in places like Yemen taking out terrorist? The fact is we are killing terrorist daily and should continue to do so...

I'm against it, not when they started of good with a list of targets which where confirmed before being hunted by drones but now I am as being ''suspected'' is enough to become a valid target...so you have incidents in which civilians are killed like the case of 17 civilians that have been killed heading to a wedding. The 5 ''suspected'' who where among them are dead too but we're talking about ''suspected'' not ''confirmed'' or ''proven'' members of an terrorist organization.

So yes I think it's very immoral to have Drones firing at ''suspected'' people without any form of confirmation that they are members of an terrorist organization and still I think they only should be taken out when the chance of killing civilian bystanders is down to a minimum.

[u crank]

From article posted by Oberon

This is the key problem with Islam and reason for most of the things that are happening in ME and rest of the world.
There seem to be lack of sufficient theologically motivated opposition.
Question is why?


A very good question.

[Armistead]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4772142.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_civilian_casualti es

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3254

http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619

So, approx 60k dead from militant Islam, and approx 113k dead from a war started by leaders who 'prayed to God'. :hmmm:

This comparison is almost laughable. However, I'll agree with you on Bush an Blair, but because they pray an believe God is with them, hell, we believed that when we fought Germany and Japan. The question is beyond such stupid statements, was the cause just. I agree it wasn't in Iraq, but also accept it could be just because Saddam was still shooting at US planes from the first war. The other fact, more people were still dying under Saddam. The other fact, no one knows the real numbers. We were fighting a enemy that surrounded itself in civilians. Hell, think of the number of German and Japanese civilians we killed. We killed many civilians in Afghanistan as well, should we have not gone to war. Sadly, when a nation attacks you or support those that attack you, innocent people die when we go to war. Again, it's much like Sherman said, if civilians support the system and culture that promotes war, then sadly they pay a price.

I'm not up on the political wars and terrorist events regarding Ireland/Brits, but to compare that local political issue to a religion that is blowing up people all over the world for religious beliefs is laughable.


Get some real numbers if you want to compare.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html

Islam has and is today the most violent religion on the face of the earth.

Edit... "So, approx 60k dead from militant Islam, and approx 113k dead from a war started by leaders who 'prayed to God'."

Those numbers are war related death...which ones were killed by the US and which ones killed by Muslims? Get your your facts s8....

[Armistead]

I'm against it, not when they started of good with a list of targets which where confirmed before being hunted by drones but now I am as being ''suspected'' is enough to become a valid target...so you have incidents in which civilians are killed like the case of 17 civilians that have been killed heading to a wedding. The 5 ''suspected'' who where among them are dead too but we're talking about ''suspected'' not ''confirmed'' or ''proven'' members of an terrorist organization.

So yes I think it's very immoral to have Drones firing at ''suspected'' people without any form of confirmation that they are members of an terrorist organization and still I think they only should be taken out when the chance of killing civilian bystanders is down to a minimum.

I understand and can somewhat agree, but it still goes back what do you do when a culture and religion allow terrorist to live and thrive in their mist? Do you leave the terrorist alone so they can plot more terror so civilians don't die or do you kill them knowing civilians will die? My point is, when civilians and leaders allow terrorist to live and thrive near them, then by default of their beliefs maybe they're not so innocent. Sadly, options have to be weighed...

[Armistead]

To achieve that sort of conventional winner-take-all victory you would literally have to conquer and subjugate the entire Middle East and a good portion of North Africa to boot. Groups like ISIS can always find a border to retreat across and set up shop again. Or find a safe haven in a failed or failing nation with vast swathes of lawless zones, like Somalia, Syria, Libya or Afghanistan (or the Sinai for that matter). There seems to be no lack of rich Arab Gulf states that will fund their favorite faction to the hilt and weapons are always easy to pick up on the world market.

Just ask the Israelis. They chased the PLO in one form or another for decades. It just moved or it morphed.

Agreed, if would take a worldwide effort to solve the issue of bringing the ME out of the dark ages.....but what are the options? So far its been the ME at war with itself with millions of muslims killing each other, massive acts of terror from Islam all over the world and the ME imploding. Yes, it would be simple if they just killed each other, but each sect still believes the ultimate goal of Islam. Add to that, these terrorist groups are seeking WMD's and the experts say they will eventually get one..

What will we say when New York goes up in a nuke attack and the world economy crumbles.. The experts say that will probably be our future in our lifetimes..

What we can't keep doing is going to war in the ME and quitting before the area is stable and leaving vacuums that are filled with even worse dictators or terrorist groups. Stay in the game and finish it by our rules or stay the hell out..

[HunterICX]

I understand and can somewhat agree, but it still goes back what do you do when a culture and religion allow terrorist to live and thrive in their mist?

Do they?
No culture or religion allows this, however most of the ME countries lack the resources, knowledge and tools to deal with it properly and then there's a problem that some countries are very divided amongst themselves so that further make it dificult to deal with Terrorists.

Sadly, options have to be weighed...

That's easier said from afar, but would you oppose a terrorist in your village who knows you well and your family...if you hold the lives of your family dear you'll probably let him be like it's the case in most of these remote villages and besides they hold the guns and pack the explosives...you probably don't.

[MH]

And what the nature of those divisions usually is?

[Tribesman]

This comparison is almost laughable.



Yet your claims are already proven laughable.

However, I'll agree with you on Bush an Blair, but because they pray an believe God is with them, hell, we believed that when we fought Germany and Japan.
So did the Germans and Japanese

The question is beyond such stupid statements
Yet you have made plenty of them.

I'm not up on the political wars and terrorist events regarding Ireland/Brits, but to compare that local political issue to a religion that is blowing up people all over the world for religious beliefs is laughable.

Yet most of what you are talking about is local political issues
Do you not know that?

Get some real numbers if you want to compare.

Wow. Glen Roberts, the man inspired by Spencer
Did you just mention real numbers?
:har:
If you want to make a point avoid Breiviks mates, after all the ADL describes those nuts as peddling a virulent and deadly form of bigoted anti-Semitism.
Not a great idea, using extremist nuts to support your view since you are trying to point the finger at extremist nuts.

Islam has and is today the most violent religion on the face of the earth
Errrrrrr.....no.
Modern fundamentalist islam is what you are on about.
If you still cannot tell the difference you have nothing worthwhile to say

[Armistead]

[QUOTEDo they?
No culture or religion allows this, however most of the ME countries lack the resources, knowledge and tools to deal with it properly and then there's a problem that some countries are very divided amongst themselves so that further make it dificult to deal with Terrorists.
]

They have plenty resources, they just refuse to use them because they live in the dark ages. Religion trumps knowledge, so the lack of tools. Modern Islam refuses to react in mass.

These people didn't hijack Islam, Islam hijacked them.

It's people that refuse to see what this religion has done.

Again...Sam Harris puts it in perspective against some stupid woman claiming it's a religion of peace...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCOQukCn0kg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfKLV6rmLxE

[HunterICX]

And what the nature of those divisions usually is?

Ethnic groups with cultural differences and yes religious sects also play a part in that but not just religion alone.

[mapuc]

Do You know what scares the living daylight out of me ?

Markus

[Dread Knot]

Do You know what scares the living daylight out of me ?

Markus

Timothy Dalton as James Bond? :D

http://www.impawards.com/1987/posters/living_daylights_ver1.jpg

[Alex]

This is the key problem with Islam

http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/47554880a.gif (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/iraq-america-and-the-lobby.html)

This man is no anti. :yeah:

[Armistead]

Yet your claims are already proven laughable.


So did the Germans and Japanese


Yet you have made plenty of them.


Yet most of what you are talking about is local political issues
Do you not know that?


Wow. Glen Roberts, the man inspired by Spencer
Did you just mention real numbers?
:har:
If you want to make a point avoid Breiviks mates, after all the ADL describes those nuts as peddling a virulent and deadly form of bigoted anti-Semitism.
Not a great idea, using extremist nuts to support your view since you are trying to point the finger at extremist nuts.


Errrrrrr.....no.
Modern fundamentalist islam is what you are on about.
If you still cannot tell the difference you have nothing worthwhile to say

I can tell the difference, but seems political correctness won't allow you. Maybe because you're scared of a billion moderate muslims...

Get time watch the great Christopher Hitchens{God rest his soul:D} debate is Islam a religion of peace and discussing so called moderate Islam..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMraxhd9Z9Q

[MH]

This man is no anti. :yeah:

Nice...

This site...I think they simply take a piss at people like you.
Write this stuff and sit back laughing...you should know better those zionist.:rotfl2::o

Now why don't you grab your teddy bear and go to sleep.

[Oberon]

This comparison is almost laughable. However, I'll agree with you on Bush an Blair, but because they pray an believe God is with them, hell, we believed that when we fought Germany and Japan. The question is beyond such stupid statements, was the cause just. I agree it wasn't in Iraq, but also accept it could be just because Saddam was still shooting at US planes from the first war. The other fact, more people were still dying under Saddam. The other fact, no one knows the real numbers. We were fighting a enemy that surrounded itself in civilians. Hell, think of the number of German and Japanese civilians we killed. We killed many civilians in Afghanistan as well, should we have not gone to war. Sadly, when a nation attacks you or support those that attack you, innocent people die when we go to war. Again, it's much like Sherman said, if civilians support the system and culture that promotes war, then sadly they pay a price.

I'm not up on the political wars and terrorist events regarding Ireland/Brits, but to compare that local political issue to a religion that is blowing up people all over the world for religious beliefs is laughable.


Get some real numbers if you want to compare.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html

Islam has and is today the most violent religion on the face of the earth.

Edit... "So, approx 60k dead from militant Islam, and approx 113k dead from a war started by leaders who 'prayed to God'."

Those numbers are war related death...which ones were killed by the US and which ones killed by Muslims? Get your your facts s8....

Ah, the infamous 'religion of peace' website, if I had a quid for everytime Skybird has linked to that, or perhaps the Avon Lady, I'd have no need to go to work tonight. :haha: I'll take Mark Humphrys with a pinch of salt since he seems to think that the Muslim conspiracy is responsible for most of the worlds ills. I took the figures for Islamic based killing from 'militantislammonitor' which I take with a pinch of salt myself, but it was the only one that did a complete figure rather than one by month or such forth.

Now, in regards to deaths caused in Iraq, now tell me...if the war had never occurred to do you really think that this violence would be taking place? If Saddam had not been removed do you think that ISIS would even have existed? In Syria perhaps, since the civil war was probably affected by the Arab Spring than the War in Iraq, however it would have struggled to gain traction between Saddams Alawite Iraq and Irans Shia forces. I doubt the two would have co-operated, but certainly it would have been harder for ISIS to grow in the manner it has if the war in Iraq had not happened.
There would still be deaths in Iraq, just as there are in Syria, just as there are in Iran and dozens of other states in the world which have not seen US intervention, however the area would not be as unstable as it is currently, but I would concede that it would be likely that some sort of civil war would be possible in Iraq following the start of Syrias civil war if Saddam was still in power, but we're looking at a probably late 2011, mid-2012 start date for it.
Now, if you really want to be precise, you can completely ignore the Iraq war for a moment and bring the cause of the current violence in Iraq back to its root cause which was the agreement between two Christian western governments on how they should carve up the lands they'd gained from the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of the First World War. Completely oblivious to local religious divisions Britain and France laid the groundwork for the problems that have dogged most of the Middle East to this day. Still, I suspect that the next century will see things shake themselves out in some form or another.

There is no moral high ground in this sort of discussion, and it doesn't come down to religion at the end of the day but to individual circumstances of nations and people. For every militant Islamic there are at least a hundred non-militant Islamic people who just want to live their lives in peace. Just like for every Christian who believes that Mecca and Medina should be nuked from orbit, there are a hundred who think that we really should just try to get along. Religion is just a smokescreen that people use to justify their own actions. :03:


Timothy Dalton as James Bond? :D

http://www.impawards.com/1987/posters/living_daylights_ver1.jpg

:har::har::har::har::har: Brilliant! :yeah:

[Armistead]

48 confirmed dead today, but at least they didn't kill those claiming to be Muslim.....at least following the Koran.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/06/16/48-dead-kenya-hotels-attack-gunmen-spared-muslims

[Bilge_Rat]

This is getting complicated...

U.S. and ISIS were loosely allied in Syria to remove Assad...

U.S. and Iran may team up to stop ISIS in Iraq...

Saudi Arabia provides financial support to ISIS...

who are the good guys again? :timeout:

[Oberon]

This is getting complicated...

U.S. and ISIS were loosely allied in Syria to remove Assad...

U.S. and Iran may team up to stop ISIS in Iraq...

Saudi Arabia provides financial support to ISIS...

who are the good guys again? :timeout:

That's not to mention the fact that U.S. worked with Saddam against Iran to begin with.

Just when I thought we were getting back to the traditional and the easier to follow NATO vs the Sovie...errr...Russia. :/\\!!

[TarJak]

There are no good guys in this.

Some light reading forArmistead:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

[Jimbuna]

Timothy Dalton as James Bond? :D

http://www.impawards.com/1987/posters/living_daylights_ver1.jpg

I liked that but can we all try not to go OTT.

[MH]

Completely oblivious to local religious divisions Britain and France laid the groundwork for the problems that have dogged most of the Middle East to this day. Still, I suspect that the next century will see things shake themselves out in some form or another.
You sort of contradict yourself here.

There is no moral high ground in this sort of discussion, and it doesn't come down to religion at the end of the day but to individual circumstances of nations and people. For every militant Islamic there are at least a hundred non-militant Islamic people who just want to live their lives in peace. Just like for every Christian who believes that Mecca and Medina should be nuked from orbit, there are a hundred who think that we really should just try to get along. Religion is just a smokescreen that people use to justify their own actions I wasn't aware that this was about whose religion is better....

You probably got the ration right lol.

Seriously... are you first grade teacher?
it is not about moral heights , talking about those issues or admitting (or not) their existence not necessarily mean that next every body would be thinking about nuking all Muslims or putting them in concentration camps.


Religion is just a smokescreen that people use to justify their own actions Off course it is....

[Armistead]

There is no moral high ground in this sort of discussion, and it doesn't come down to religion at the end of the day but to individual circumstances of nations and people. For every militant Islamic there are at least a hundred non-militant Islamic people who just want to live their lives in peace. Just like for every Christian who believes that Mecca and Medina should be nuked from orbit, there are a hundred who think that we really should just try to get along. Religion is just a smokescreen that people use to justify their own actions. :03:

:har::har::har::har::har: Brilliant! :yeah:


I agree and disagree. Certainly religion has been used as a smokescreen by dubious people through history to take control of the masses, sometimes for the better, mostly for the worse. However, for many, including numerous political leaders, people justify their actions because of religion. Worse, millions of people simply follow like sheep and follow faith without question.
Both sides claim divine books, but worse, devine endings....a last sacred genocide of humanity, then God saves the ...saved and tortures the rest of us.

Even today with most Christians claiming modernism, they still believe their divine books. Moderates on all sides still look at each other with suspect and hate. Most of the problems in the ME, including Israel stem from politics based on religious beliefs, such as we view Israel as Gods chosen people. The reason moderates don't really seek change in the end is because they would have to deny their sacred scriptures. Both sides seem to create situations to bring forth the end of mankind and the final solution....the end of the earth. Moderate madness is still madness, our last hope being when the end comes and no savior appears, that there will be enough of us left to rebuild on sound logic and science.

Yes, Christianity has greatly evolved into a more secular devotional way of life, where people believe in science, freedom of people, civil rights, etc. Moderate Islam just isn't close.....not yet and I don't know that it can ever be. Maybe the fact that divine concepts can so radically evolve proves the fact they weren't divine afterall...

[Armistead]

There are no good guys in this.

Some light reading forArmistead:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

do I detect a sarcastic insult in that....light reading for Armistead...:haha: as if I couldn't handle the hard stuff...:hmph:

Yea, I scanned it and know most of it. My point is to compare that conflict to the worldwide violence in Islam is silly. The fight was over different reasons and finally came to a ....workable solution. The problems with Islam continue to worsen with each decade...Again, I don't really think modernism is the right word, they're people that follow their divine books and people that claim the belief, but simply ignore the tenets of the faith..However, I think they know they exist, but to deal with them would unravel their faith, so people stumble in a daze of ignorant belief, mostly a cultural thing.

[TarJak]

If I was trying to insult you I would not have been so circumspect. You mentioned that you knew little about the subject. Sounds like your scanning was very cursory as my answer to the question you raised about modern examples of Christian terrorism was almost completely ignored.

You've ignored the other examples as well. Are they collectively not enough to convince you that your assertions that Islam is far more deadly than any other religion are complete bollox? Do you need more numbers that disprove your assertions again or are you happy to continue to ignore the evidence?

[Tribesman]

I can tell the difference,
You prove again and again that you don't.:down:

but seems political correctness won't allow you.
Sorry to break it to ya, but I don't do political correctness.

Maybe because you're scared of a billion moderate muslims...
You really are on a roll at not making any sense.
Well done.

Get time watch the great Christopher Hitchens{God rest his soul:D} debate is Islam a religion of peace and discussing so called moderate Islam
You just discovered that?
Not his best.
Ramadam really rips him apart, Hitchens is very fuzzy and makes many simple mistakes, plenty of contradictions.
Hitchens does far better ripping into other religions.
So that raises the question, did you watch it or was it something you just decided to put up after finding it on one of your funny links?:har:

[Jimbuna]

The US are sending in approximately 275 personnel to help protect their embassy as the insurgents are only 37 miles from Baghdad according to some reports...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27881995

[STEED]

Too answer the title of the thread...NO NO NO NO.

[Armistead]

The US are sending in approximately 275 personnel to help protect their embassy as the insurgents are only 37 miles from Baghdad according to some reports...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27881995

Some scary stuff being reported on the news if true, mass killings, getting stingers and closing in on Baghdad. When the US was there we had the ability to deal with all the groups, not to mention the power to back it up. Almost funny, Obama saying the war is over and here we are sending back ships and some troops....Sadly, I think it's too late and we're getting ready to witness human tragedy on a mass level for years to come. Let's hope it doesn't spread through the entire region.....and prepare for oil to go sky high...

[soopaman2]

The army we trained keep civilian clothes underneath thier uniforms, so it can be quickly stripped off in case of actually having to fight.


Let them fight for thier own freedom, like America had to.

I am sick of being world police.

We are the first to be spit on and blamed, called warmongers or imperialists, but the first one called when someone needs some firepower, troops, or money.

Screw them, home first.

How about we fix the VA backlog?
How about we fix our rotting bridges, and start infrastructure building again, lets build stuff again! We invented skyscrapers, the arabs are kicking our asses on that too. (Dubai)
How about we address our national debt?

Screw them, maybe they need a group like ISIS to rule them, brutal and to the point.

I see why Saddam was so hard on his people, you have to be, when you go in there with "hearts and minds" rainbows and butterflys, and a complex and confusing rules of engagement, you cannot prevail against people who have been trained since birth to reject you.

They understand force and fear, the religion is based on it, Saddam had those bastards in check with his brutality, which is why ISIS has more of a chance of bringing peace than any non muslim western nation ever will.

I am not advocating ISIS and its actions. Just saying the people of that country despise us, and wanted us out, well now that we are out... Have fun silly! :salute:

[Armistead]

If I was trying to insult you I would not have been so circumspect. You mentioned that you knew little about the subject. Sounds like your scanning was very cursory as my answer to the question you raised about modern examples of Christian terrorism was almost completely ignored.

You've ignored the other examples as well. Are they collectively not enough to convince you that your assertions that Islam is far more deadly than any other religion are complete bollox? Do you need more numbers that disprove your assertions again or are you happy to continue to ignore the evidence?

I don't think Christian terrorism exist, at least not in theology. You won't find Christ or the Apostles teaching to kill your enemies or apostates. You don't find Christ saying stoning women is OK. The difference is, Islam and Muhammad are religions based on destroying your enemy, killing apostates, killing gays, etc. With Islam you can find terrorism in it's religion, In Christianity you cannot. Obvious there have been mass acts of so called Christian terror and war that equals Islam, but it's not a teaching of Christianity.

Any radical can claim a religion, the question is what does the religion teach itself! Do you really claim that Christ and Muhammad dealt with humanity the same? The so called radicals of Islam....are true Islam. The radicals claiming Christianity....are just radicals that can't look to the NT and find a basis for their evil actions.

Keeping in mind that I'm a atheist/agnostic and don't believe in either, but know enough to know the difference in the teachings of the two..

[Dread Knot]

Obama saying the war is over and here we are sending back ships and some troops....



I think those forces being sent are primarily to protect the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

The main thrust of the complaint about Benghazi is that we didn't have enough security protecting our diplomats there. Looks like we're going in the opposite direction now and perhaps for good reason.

[Armistead]

The army we trained keep civilian clothes underneath thier uniforms, so it can be quickly stripped off in case of actually having to fight.


Let them fight for thier own freedom, like America had to.

I am sick of being world police.

We are the first to be spit on and blamed, called warmongers or imperialists, but the first one called when someone needs some firepower, troops, or money.

Screw them, home first.

How about we fix the VA backlog?
How about we fix our rotting bridges, and start infrastructure building again, lets build stuff again! We invented skyscrapers, the arabs are kicking our asses on that too. (Dubai)
How about we address our national debt?

Screw them, maybe they need a group like ISIS to rule them, brutal and to the point.

I see why Saddam was so hard on his people, you have to be, when you go in there with "hearts and minds" rainbows and butterflys, and a complex and confusing rules of engagement, you cannot prevail against people who have been trained since birth to reject you.

They understand force and fear, the religion is based on it, Saddam had those bastards in check with his brutality, which is why ISIS has more of a chance of bringing peace than any non muslim western nation ever will.

I am not advocating ISIS and its actions. Just saying the people of that country despise us, and wanted us out, well now that we are out... Have fun silly! :salute:

The only problem ISIS claims to be at war with us and telling us they will be coming for us next.....We ignored OBL when he made these claims and looked what happened and this group could be much worse. Sadly, seems like OBL they're getting a lot of funding from our so called moderate allies.

I would rather deal with it now than guess at something like this later. We put 100's of billions into Iraq. 1000's of lives and to just walk away and give it to a enemy that will be coming for us next....don't think so.

[Armistead]

I think those forces being sent are primarily to protect the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

The main thrust of the complaint about Benghazi is that we didn't have enough security protecting our diplomats there. Looks like we're going in the opposite direction now and perhaps for good reason.

If Baghdad falls, a few 100 troops can't do anything...we'll have to do a total bail or put in enough forces to deal with it.

Course, I'm sure ISIS troops would love our embassy as their new headquarters.

However, I think taking Baghdad would be quite a chore, doesn't mean they can't turn the city into total chaos with mass suicide bombings and attacks. If the millions of people panic...gonna be a mess.

[soopaman2]

The only problem ISIS claims to be at war with us and telling us they will be coming for us next.....We ignored OBL when he made these claims and looked what happened and this group could be much worse. Sadly, seems like OBL they're getting a lot of funding from our so called moderate allies.

I would rather deal with it now than guess at something like this later. We put 100's of billions into Iraq. 1000's of lives and to just walk away and give it to a enemy that will be coming for us next....don't think so.


I understand, and I have pondered that. But I have reached the "enough is enough" stage, and am just sick of Muslim Extremism.

I feel America needs to become more introverted, maybe everyone else would appreciate all we do for people at the expense of our own citizens/veterans/bridge and road maintainance etc.

I hate being the scapegoat and the savior.

[Dread Knot]

However, I think taking Baghdad would be quite a chore, doesn't mean they can't turn the city into total chaos with mass suicide bombings and attacks. If the millions of people panic...gonna be a mess.

At this point I don't expect the ISIS militants to successfully invade Baghdad. There are too many Shiites in the area who are absolutely determined to prevent that. I believe this is where Iraq diverges significantly from the Vietnam 1975 scenario.

In Vietnam the people in the Saigon area were faced with an invasion by a national military that was battle-tested, highly trained and skilled. In Iraq, the invaders are basically a political extremist group, Islamic jihadists. They've demonstrated their willingness to slaughter unarmed people who they have captured without a fight; who know what will happen when the victims start shooting back? Because also unlike in 'Nam, the Iraqi Shiites are armed and have given every indication they are ready to take it to the streets and fight tooth-and-nail to repel the ISIS force. Since the ISIS is already carrying out religious murders and publicizing it, I expect they will face a very determined resistance... people literally fighting for their lives...if they try and invade the Baghdad area.

[soopaman2]

At this point I don't expect the ISIS militants to successfully invade Baghdad. There are too many Shiites in the area who are absolutely determined to prevent that. I believe this is where Iraq diverges significantly from the Vietnam 1975 scenario.

In Vietnam the people in the Saigon area were faced with an invasion by a national military that was battle-tested, highly trained and skilled. In Iraq, the invaders are basically a political extremist group, Islamic jihadists. They've demonstrated their willingness to slaughter unarmed people who they have captured without a fight; who know what will happen when the victims start shooting back? Because also unlike in 'Nam, the Iraqi Shiites are armed and have given every indication they are ready to take it to the streets and fight tooth-and-nail to repel the ISIS force. Since the ISIS is already carrying out religious murders and publicizing it, I expect they will face a very determined resistance... people literally fighting for their lives...if they try and invade the Baghdad area.

The Vietnam comparison is nearly spot on.

What these extremists will do when faced with a well trained US force, is don civilian clothing, and bury IED's, hide in plain sight amongst civilians by day, and kill and kidnap our troops by night, just like when we were there last time!

The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results.:up:


I would support us going back if we can use WW2 era rules of engagement make the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden look like a small bbq.

I bet all the shenanigans stops then. :dead:

If you are going to fight, then fight to win decisively! Not this half assed crap we been doing...

[Tribesman]

I don't think Christian terrorism exist, at least not in theology. You won't find Christ or the Apostles teaching to kill your enemies or apostates. You don't find Christ saying stoning women is OK. The difference is, Islam and Muhammad are religions based on destroying your enemy, killing apostates, killing gays, etc. With Islam you can find terrorism in it's religion, In Christianity you cannot. Obvious there have been mass acts of so called Christian terror and war that equals Islam, but it's not a teaching of Christianity.
Well done Armistead.
Irrefutable proof that you havn't even read your own links.:O:

[Armistead]

Well done Armistead.
Irrefutable proof that you havn't even read your own links.:O:

As usual, you make little sense and lack common sense. The fact that I may post links that may make some claims I agree with and some I don't is a matter of looking at all sides. However, in this case, if you want to actually show exactly what you mean, I'll be glad to discuss it, but your statement makes no sense....like most of your politically correct arguments..

[Armistead]

The Vietnam comparison is nearly spot on.

What these extremists will do when faced with a well trained US force, is don civilian clothing, and bury IED's, hide in plain sight amongst civilians by day, and kill and kidnap our troops by night, just like when we were there last time!

The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results.:up:


I would support us going back if we can use WW2 era rules of engagement make the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden look like a small bbq.

I bet all the shenanigans stops then. :dead:

If you are going to fight, then fight to win decisively! Not this half assed crap we been doing...

Well, it's probably gonna be what does it cost now and what will it cost later. Let's say ISIS gains power, takes a big slice of the country and then goes into the worldwide terror business, including attacking the US. They state this is their plan.

I do agree the area is FUBAR. We should've remained in control for a long time before turning it over to them and letting Maliki take power. We should've implemented the same policies as we did with Japan and Germany in WW2...

[Armistead]

At this point I don't expect the ISIS militants to successfully invade Baghdad. There are too many Shiites in the area who are absolutely determined to prevent that. I believe this is where Iraq diverges significantly from the Vietnam 1975 scenario.

In Vietnam the people in the Saigon area were faced with an invasion by a national military that was battle-tested, highly trained and skilled. In Iraq, the invaders are basically a political extremist group, Islamic jihadists. They've demonstrated their willingness to slaughter unarmed people who they have captured without a fight; who know what will happen when the victims start shooting back? Because also unlike in 'Nam, the Iraqi Shiites are armed and have given every indication they are ready to take it to the streets and fight tooth-and-nail to repel the ISIS force. Since the ISIS is already carrying out religious murders and publicizing it, I expect they will face a very determined resistance... people literally fighting for their lives...if they try and invade the Baghdad area.

Agreed, with a lil help from us, maybe they can turn the tide...but it's like it's always been...we take turns dancing with the devil. It's why I believe we should have worked with Saddam and used him to our benefit as much as possible in the area, instead of going to war to start with. The situation remains a nasty outhouse with no toilet paper..

[Tribesman]

As usual, you make little sense and lack common sense. ..
It makes perfect sense.
You cannot be making such statements as you have in light of the supporting links you have posted.
By doing so it strongly implies that you havn't bothered to view your own evidence which you are using to support your claims.
As it has happened so often in this topic that strong implication can be put as a certainty


The fact that I may post links that may make some claims I agree with and some I don't is a matter of looking at all sides.
If your evidence contradicts your claims it contradicts your claims.
If you wish to show those pieces you posted as false then show them as false
Your problem isn't looking at all sides, it's simply not looking.

However, in this case, if you want to actually show exactly what you mean, I'll be glad to discuss it,
May I suggest you read your links and watch your videos first.
No one who had done so could be making the claims you are making.

but your statement makes no sense....like most of your politically correct arguments
PC :har::har::har::har::har:
Young man, I don't do PC:rotfl2:

[Armistead]

Ah, the infamous 'religion of peace' website, if I had a quid for everytime Skybird has linked to that, or perhaps the Avon Lady, I'd have no need to go to work tonight. :haha: I'll take Mark Humphrys with a pinch of salt since he seems to think that the Muslim conspiracy is responsible for most of the worlds ills. I took the figures for Islamic based killing from 'militantislammonitor' which I take with a pinch of salt myself, but it was the only one that did a complete figure rather than one by month or such forth.

Now, in regards to deaths caused in Iraq, now tell me...if the war had never occurred to do you really think that this violence would be taking place? If Saddam had not been removed do you think that ISIS would even have existed? In Syria perhaps, since the civil war was probably affected by the Arab Spring than the War in Iraq, however it would have struggled to gain traction between Saddams Alawite Iraq and Irans Shia forces. I doubt the two would have co-operated, but certainly it would have been harder for ISIS to grow in the manner it has if the war in Iraq had not happened.
There would still be deaths in Iraq, just as there are in Syria, just as there are in Iran and dozens of other states in the world which have not seen US intervention, however the area would not be as unstable as it is currently, but I would concede that it would be likely that some sort of civil war would be possible in Iraq following the start of Syrias civil war if Saddam was still in power, but we're looking at a probably late 2011, mid-2012 start date for it.
Now, if you really want to be precise, you can completely ignore the Iraq war for a moment and bring the cause of the current violence in Iraq back to its root cause which was the agreement between two Christian western governments on how they should carve up the lands they'd gained from the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of the First World War. Completely oblivious to local religious divisions Britain and France laid the groundwork for the problems that have dogged most of the Middle East to this day. Still, I suspect that the next century will see things shake themselves out in some form or another.

There is no moral high ground in this sort of discussion, and it doesn't come down to religion at the end of the day but to individual circumstances of nations and people. For every militant Islamic there are at least a hundred non-militant Islamic people who just want to live their lives in peace. Just like for every Christian who believes that Mecca and Medina should be nuked from orbit, there are a hundred who think that we really should just try to get along. Religion is just a smokescreen that people use to justify their own actions. :03:




:har::har::har::har::har: Brilliant! :yeah:

Don't think you answered the question. You clearly implied praying Bush and Blair were responsible for the numbers you listed as war related civilian deaths. I asked you how many of those war related deaths were caused by US soldiers fighting? Certainly, innocent people were killed, but you leave out that a good majority of those were related to things like the mass suicide bombings, civilians killed by the enemy in war and civilians killed by other nations as well....or do wish to blame Christianity for all this as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Iraq_since_2003

[Armistead]

It makes perfect sense.
You cannot be making such statements as you have in light of the supporting links you have posted.
By doing so it strongly implies that you havn't bothered to view your own evidence which you are using to support your claims.
As it has happened so often in this topic that strong implication can be put as a certainty



If your evidence contradicts your claims it contradicts your claims.
If you wish to show those pieces you posted as false then show them as false
Your problem isn't looking at all sides, it's simply not looking.


May I suggest you read your links and watch your videos first.
No one who had done so could be making the claims you are making.


PC :har::har::har::har::har:
Young man, I don't do PC:rotfl2:

as usual, you have nothing but sly silly remarks and create claims that make no sense. Again, post the link that I posted that you claim contradicts my statement that Christianity doesn't teach terror in it's doctrine that Islam does....or you can keep up with your typical useless statements that add nothing to the topic..

[Nippelspanner]

I would support us going back if we can use WW2 era rules of engagement make the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden look like a small bbq.

I bet all the shenanigans stops then. :dead:

If you are going to fight, then fight to win decisively! Not this half assed crap we been doing...
I know right!
Quick, go kill thousands of civilians that don't suffer enough yet, you're good at that. But why use Fire? You have plenty of nuclear warheads that are just waiting for action... just as many of your countrymen are waiting to just drop it, the good Christians you all are.
Time to bomb the crap out of those sand bimbos, they are subhuman anyways with there mumbo-jumbo stone-age culture, we are so much better with our iPhones and eating death in form of food while watching sports instead of doing it ourselves, daring to look down upon foreign countries and cultures, aren't we?

Hey at least we know we're so damn free, right?
It is about time Murica stops fighting like a half-assed sissy that is trying to keep collateral damage at a minimum and just waste all those forkers over there, alas you guys are the leaders of the free world, if you won't do it, omg who will?
Cause let's not forget, you just went there to free all those poor people from the axis of evil and 'dem tewwowists hidin' everywhere just waiting to destroy our freedom!
Murica, fork yeah!
Dresden reloaded!
'Bout time, bro - let's do it!

God bless America!
(and don't you dare to bless the rest God!!)

:/\\!!

Soopaman, you're an idiot, really.
Just shut up if you have no clue what you are talking about.
I have no words for how angry your stupid posts make me sometimes.
Blind, ignorant, extreme and flat out stupid.

That's all I ever read from you, really.
But hey, at least you don't have to feel alone here at Subsim.

I go back hugging trees and fighting for gay-liberal-communist-Nazidentist rights, the sissy I am for having such a point of view. In the end, I am living in oppression and in chains over here in Germany, according to someone here, what do I know of freedom?
Oh well, I guess I went too far, maybe it's time to just lighten up the mood with some jokes 'bout those MH370 victims... or just any humans.
As long as we won't make jokes about Americans it's cool I guess.

Hey, what did the 911 operators said to the people being trapped in the burning twin towers?
"Catch 'ya later!"

Cheer up everyone! There are more important things right now anyways...like the world cup, so who cares.:yeah:

[Oberon]

Don't think you answered the question. You clearly implied praying Bush and Blair were responsible for the numbers you listed as war related civilian deaths. I asked you how many of those war related deaths were caused by US soldiers fighting? Certainly, innocent people were killed, but you leave out that a good majority of those were related to things like the mass suicide bombings, civilians killed by the enemy in war and civilians killed by other nations as well....or do wish to blame Christianity for all this as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Iraq_since_2003

Well, how many mass suicide bombings were there in Iraq before Saddam was removed? And who removed Saddam? :hmmm:

It's hard to get firm information on civlian deaths and causes of civilian deaths out of Iraq and Afghanistan because of the nature of the war, however the estimate on Iraqbodycount indicates from 2003-2011 about 15,050, which is less than I expected I must admit.
The thing is, this is a no-win scenario, no matter what the US does it will encourage action against it, if it bombs ISIS it will encourage more to join the cause against 'the Great Satan' (TM) and if it does nothing it will make ISIS bolder. The United States could put every single soldier it has into the Middle East and it would be no safer afterwards than it was when it first started, not to mention any government that did this would be overthrown by its people.
The US is used to quick decisive wars, it is unable to accept wars that last longer than six to eight years, the people grow weary of the death tolls and register their displeasure in demonstrations and voting choices. Heck, you could say the same about just about any western nation post-WWII, unless you remove the democracy from the nation, you'll quickly encounter war weariness even if you pump out as much propaganda and nationalistic material by the dozen. Especially if, as is the case with Iraq, there has been no attacks on the homeland soil. The outrage from 9/11 has faded in the thirteen years since it happened, and it's been replaced with the feeling that the US is stuck in a war it'll never win, and the news from Iraq is only reinforcing this fact.

[Armistead]

Well, how many mass suicide bombings were there in Iraq before Saddam was removed? And who removed Saddam? :hmmm:

It's hard to get firm information on civlian deaths and causes of civilian deaths out of Iraq and Afghanistan because of the nature of the war, however the estimate on Iraqbodycount indicates from 2003-2011 about 15,050, which is less than I expected I must admit.
The thing is, this is a no-win scenario, no matter what the US does it will encourage action against it, if it bombs ISIS it will encourage more to join the cause against 'the Great Satan' (TM) and if it does nothing it will make ISIS bolder. The United States could put every single soldier it has into the Middle East and it would be no safer afterwards than it was when it first started, not to mention any government that did this would be overthrown by its people.
The US is used to quick decisive wars, it is unable to accept wars that last longer than six to eight years, the people grow weary of the death tolls and register their displeasure in demonstrations and voting choices. Heck, you could say the same about just about any western nation post-WWII, unless you remove the democracy from the nation, you'll quickly encounter war weariness even if you pump out as much propaganda and nationalistic material by the dozen. Especially if, as is the case with Iraq, there has been no attacks on the homeland soil. The outrage from 9/11 has faded in the thirteen years since it happened, and it's been replaced with the feeling that the US is stuck in a war it'll never win, and the news from Iraq is only reinforcing this fact.

I appreciate the honest answer..and agree with enough to see no need to respond..

[Dread Knot]

The US is used to quick decisive wars, it is unable to accept wars that last longer than six to eight years, the people grow weary of the death tolls and register their displeasure in demonstrations and voting choices. Heck, you could say the same about just about any western nation post-WWII, unless you remove the democracy from the nation, you'll quickly encounter war weariness even if you pump out as much propaganda and nationalistic material by the dozen.

Excellent points. As Americans we want to fight wars these days “on the cheap,” and our enemies know it. We want pre-modern societies to do an about-face and let go the political instincts that have sustained them through four thousand years of anarchy and blood feud. We forget that we spent 600,000 American lives ourselves to decide once and for all the future course of this nation and we're lucky it ended militarily as cleanly and decisively as it did. Politically and socially, however it still lingers.

I don’t think that Obama ever saw anything worth fighting for in Iraq or Afghanistan. Like many neo-liberals, I doubt that he shares the conservative attitude that a military footprint in either or both of those two nations translates directly into reduced vulnerability to terrorism at home. Obama plainly resented his inheritance of “George Bush’s wars” and was only too relieved to give us all what we said we wanted: withdrawal. He does not relish the idea of redeploying significant ground forces to a country where we remain profoundly unwelcome, all for the purpose of stabilizing a regime that shows no sign of being able to deliver stability or equity over the long term, whatever the outcome of this immediate fight.

I wish there was an equitable way to divide the artificial nation of Iraq among it's unhappy factions. However there are too many interested outside parties who would undermine any such attempt. I imagine even an independent Kurdistan would get gobbled up in no time flat by either Turkey or Iran, and the question of who gets the lion's portion of the oil wealth would make up drawing borders impossible.

[Wolferz]

From the look of recent news, Obama might be looking to sucker Iran into doing the dirty work. Just the thought of it is...meh!:stare:

[Catfish]

The same like some former US government when it sold lots of weapons to Iraq and then made their man (Saddam Hussein, back then) attack Iran. Now only vice versa :hmmm:

[soopaman2]

I know right!
Quick, go kill thousands of civilians that don't suffer enough yet, you're good at that. But why use Fire? You have plenty of nuclear warheads that are just waiting for action... just as many of your countrymen are waiting to just drop it, the good Christians you all are.
Time to bomb the crap out of those sand bimbos, they are subhuman anyways with there mumbo-jumbo stone-age culture, we are so much better with our iPhones and eating death in form of food while watching sports instead of doing it ourselves, daring to look down upon foreign countries and cultures, aren't we?

Hey at least we know we're so damn free, right?
It is about time Murica stops fighting like a half-assed sissy that is trying to keep collateral damage at a minimum and just waste all those forkers over there, alas you guys are the leaders of the free world, if you won't do it, omg who will?
Cause let's not forget, you just went there to free all those poor people from the axis of evil and 'dem tewwowists hidin' everywhere just waiting to destroy our freedom!
Murica, fork yeah!
Dresden reloaded!
'Bout time, bro - let's do it!

God bless America!
(and don't you dare to bless the rest God!!)

:/\\!!

Soopaman, you're an idiot, really.
Just shut up if you have no clue what you are talking about.
I have no words for how angry your stupid posts make me sometimes.
Blind, ignorant, extreme and flat out stupid.

That's all I ever read from you, really.
But hey, at least you don't have to feel alone here at Subsim.

I go back hugging trees and fighting for gay-liberal-communist-Nazidentist rights, the sissy I am for having such a point of view. In the end, I am living in oppression and in chains over here in Germany, according to someone here, what do I know of freedom?
Oh well, I guess I went too far, maybe it's time to just lighten up the mood with some jokes 'bout those MH370 victims... or just any humans.
As long as we won't make jokes about Americans it's cool I guess.

Hey, what did the 911 operators said to the people being trapped in the burning twin towers?
"Catch 'ya later!"

Cheer up everyone! There are more important things right now anyways...like the world cup, so who cares.:yeah:



There is ways to disagree without calling me names.

I got saved messages from mods chastizing me severely for less than what you did to me.

I am expecting an apology or a chastizement for blatant namecalling, and calling me a gay liberal, I am a straight centrist.

I am serious, I reported your post, I been given a vacation for less.

[Armistead]

There is ways to disagree without calling me names.

I got saved messages from mods chastizing me severely for less than what you did to me.

I am expecting an apology or a chastizement for blatant namecalling, and calling me a gay liberal, I am a straight centrist.

I am serious, I reported your post, I been given a vacation for less.

I don't think he called you gay, just an idiot...:O:

[Armistead]

From the look of recent news, Obama might be looking to sucker Iran into doing the dirty work. Just the thought of it is...meh!:stare:

More like Iran is going to do the work and Obama is the sucker...

[Tribesman]

as usual, you have nothing but sly silly remarks and create claims that make no sense.
It is not that they make no sense, just that you don't understand.
A "silly remark" would be posting evidence to support your claim when the evidence you post destroys it.
Though that makes it not just a silly remark but a very very silly remark

Again, post the link that I posted that you claim contradicts my statement that Christianity doesn't teach terror in it's doctrine that Islam does....or you can keep up with your typical useless statements that add nothing to the topic..
Which would you prefer first Hitchens or Humphrys?
Both are very clear on it, but you would know that if you looked at your own links:know:
Though honestly I cannot believe you tried to use Hitchens as a source, are you unaware of his views on all the big three and their texts ?
Simple hint for future reference. If you want to claim A is worse than B or C don't use a source to back your claim if it says AB&C are identical in that regard.:yep:

[soopaman2]

I don't think he called you gay, just an idiot...:O:

Like I said, there is constructive ways to disagree, without calling names or making sweeping generalizations about my character..

I appreciate your joke, but I am seriously holding back an atomic bomb of insults toward nipplewrench or whatever his name is

He got insulted over my reference to Dresden, but my point in making that reference was that we equalled the force of the Germans during that war, not only equalled but surpassed. Which we shoulda done in Iraq.

I do not need a moral decency lecture about WW2 atrocities from a German, no offense dude, but. I do not have to say it. Firebombing is tame compared to things them cats and their Japanese buddies did.


And yes I am an idiot, but only people I like can point that out!:D

Anyways, how long before Iran decides to poke its nose into this?

[Armistead]

Like I said, there is constructive ways to disagree, without calling names or making sweeping generalizations about my character..

I appreciate your joke, but I am seriously holding back an atomic bomb of insults toward nipplewrench or whatever his name is

He got insulted over my reference to Dresden, but my point in making that reference was that we equalled the force of the Germans during that war, not only equalled but surpassed. Which we shoulda done in Iraq.

I do not need a moral decency lecture about WW2 atrocities from a German, no offense dude, but. I do not have to say it. Firebombing is tame compared to things them cats and their Japanese buddies did.


And yes I am an idiot, but only people I like can point that out!:D

Anyways, how long before Iran decides to poke its nose into this?

I wouldn't get worked up about it. I actually like crazy forums where anything goes and my vocabulary isn't limited.. I think Neal should have a "Anything Goes" day, where we can just get it all out in the open...

After being insulted and belittled for years by Wolferz, I really have some things I would like to say. I don't have the ability for the vintage insult, but I damn sure know when it's being used towards me...

[Nippelspanner]

Like I said, there is constructive ways to disagree, without calling names or making sweeping generalizations about my character..

I appreciate your joke, but I am seriously holding back an atomic bomb of insults toward nipplewrench or whatever his name is

He got insulted over my reference to Dresden, but my point in making that reference was that we equalled the force of the Germans during that war, not only equalled but surpassed. Which we shoulda done in Iraq.

I do not need a moral decency lecture about WW2 atrocities from a German, no offense dude, but. I do not have to say it. Firebombing is tame compared to things them cats and their Japanese buddies did.


And yes I am an idiot, but only people I like can point that out!:D

Anyways, how long before Iran decides to poke its nose into this?
Nipplewrench...yeah I figured you have problems reading, since you did not even understand my post, not even the point of it.
You may read it again.
Are you that homophobic that you instantly think someone calls you gay just when the word falls?

I got an infraction, so be happy. I sure won't apologize for the truth, though.
We are what we do.
I may act like a bumhole right now, maybe I am one, feel free to judge.
But if you bring stupid posts like that where you openly support the bombing of thousands of civilians, which is simply an act of terror, terror you wanna see destroyed, yes, then I have to say what I said. You also put no thoughts behind your empty words and catchphrases you picked up somewhere else, obviously.

I also did not get insulted over your Dresden reference. Why would I? I am all but a nationalist, I am not "proud to be born somewhere" and I sure don't be angry for things that happened generations ago, that is just weak and stupid and obviously something you like to do, your post could not have been more ridiculous in regards of that.
I am unable to hand out moral decency lectures because... I am German? Really?
You just won the internet, really. Congratulations, well deserved!

You just insulted everyone (not me) who was a victim of these acts and also ask for more, like the people in Iraq are just some annoyance, not worth living, subhuman, some crap like that.
Who do you expect to die if you burn a CITY to the ground or use massive force, genius?
Why do you think that have not been the doctrine in Astan and Iraq? Oh, right!

If you can't handle the truth, just be quiet and don't put yourself in a position where you look like the douche of the day and then pout and demand an apology over a well deserved call. How about you start apologizing for saying crap like the above? Didn't cross your mind, did it?

Feel free to insult me, go for private messages if you want to, won't report, won't complain, cause I too had to hold back a lot and once more damned Neals strict rules, even if they are good after all.
And in the end, I couldn't care less what you want or need to call me, I could not have any less respect for you to care, so shoot.

End of discussion for me, leads OT anyways.

[Sailor Steve]

Okay, we've had our fun. Everybody got to do some shouting. The next step will be to lock the thread for awhile.

[Armistead]

What else is sad is the American contractors that got trapped in Balad working for the US govt. Thankfully they were able to pick up weapons the soldiers that fled left to hold ISIS off. During this time the US did nothing, not even air cover. I'm not even sure if they're all out yet, but that the Iraqis got most of them out and working on the others.

You think Obama would at least protect our people there.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/06/air-force-stand-position-100-american-contractors-attacked-isis-jihadists/.

[eddie]

Not to worry, Sistani is firing up his flock of Shia followers to fight the Sunni. No need for us to get involved.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/iraqi-cleric-al-sistani-tells-followers-fight-sunni-rebels-n130416

And those US Contractors, if they don't want to get caught in the middle of all the BS, then they should LEAVE the stinking area!! Just how stupid are they anyway!

[Armistead]

Not to worry, Sistani is firing up his flock of Shia followers to fight the Sunni. No need for us to get involved.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/iraqi-cleric-al-sistani-tells-followers-fight-sunni-rebels-n130416

And those US Contractors, if they don't want to get caught in the middle of all the BS, then they should LEAVE the stinking area!! Just how stupid are they anyway!

The escape routes were cut off and they thought they were under large Iraqi protection that fled, plus they were honorably trying to do their job for the US military.

[Tribesman]

What else is sad is the American contractors that got trapped in Balad working for the US govt. Thankfully they were able to pick up weapons the soldiers that fled left to hold ISIS off. During this time the US did nothing, not even air cover. I'm not even sure if they're all out yet, but that the Iraqis got most of them out and working on the others.

You think Obama would at least protect our people there.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/06/air-force-stand-position-100-american-contractors-attacked-isis-jihadists/.
You really do yourself proud there.
No wonder you are so confused.
Birther nuts:har::har::har::har:
But it gets even better, the story is taken from a source that features in one of your earlier links, you know the link where American christians are singing the praises of biblical law being imposed so the government can kill people for being gay:rotfl2:
Oh sorry I forgot, you don't read your own links do you:doh:

edit to add.
Damn it gets even better, Obama is a muslim poofter with a militant agenda who is turning the whole world gay and muslim.
How can anyone in their right mind link to such sites? is that where you get your news and views from Armistead?
It certainly explains a lot.

[Armistead]

You really do yourself proud there.
No wonder you are so confused.
Birther nuts:har::har::har::har:
But it gets even better, the story is taken from a source that features in one of your earlier links, you know the link where American christians are singing the praises of biblical law being imposed so the government can kill people for being gay:rotfl2:
Oh sorry I forgot, you don't read your own links do you:doh:

edit to add.
Damn it gets even better, Obama is a muslim poofter with a militant agenda who is turning the whole world gay and muslim.
How can anyone in their right mind link to such sites? is that where you get your news and views from Armistead?
It certainly explains a lot.


still nothing huh....

[Feuer Frei!]

I do not need a moral decency lecture about WW2 atrocities from a German,

But it's ok from a Russian?

[Oberon]

I can give one if required, I mean we only firebombed a few hundred thousand. :yep:

[Armistead]

I can give one if required, I mean we only firebombed a few hundred thousand. :yep:

and they still didn't surrender......part of the price of supporting a war machine.

Course, Germany probably has the record killing 6 million Jews..

[Feuer Frei!]

6 million. You sure? If you believe mainstream reports.

Still didn't give up? After Dresden bombing?

Yea, of course a fighting force would stop and lay down arms and surrender after an attrocity and say: ok, we give up, Dresden was a bbq (as one poster has said) and call it a day.

We should really derail this thread and have some discussions about numbers bandied about which have been going up and down (mainly down) in history and have also while we are at it a discussion about Dresden and the likeness to it as a bbq and why the German forces didn't stop fighting after such a awesome justified act.

If not, then stop the dribble and get on with talking about thread title.

Would be a lot wiser.

EDIT: Always a lot of fun deciphering the real meaning or true meaning of words posted online.

[Oberon]

And that is where the crux of the matter lies, aerial 'terror' bombing was found to be fairly pointless towards the war effort, it either slightly lowered or increased public morale depending on where they lived, and did little to hinder the war effort over a small period of time.
Of course, taken over decades you would depopulate entire cities, which would cause a hindrance, but you would run out of munitions first and you would still not break the spirit of the enemy.
The enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan has been living under the shadow of aerial bombardment for over a decade, and they are still going strong.
Aerial bombardment does not win wars, it may aid them, but it does not win them.

There's an old saying, "The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand."
Iraq was not calculated in the temples, the whole idea of a 'war on terrorism' was an unachievable goal set by those who would never have to achieve it, a more believable title would have been 'attempted pre-emptive operations', but when two religions clash...well, I'll just use this from A Game of Thrones to accurate surmise the problem that the western world faces in the Middle East at this time:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WkvZ3rxHFG8/U0KyMSFfIXI/AAAAAAAAAiM/FWpuHD6eF9M/s1600/How-long-does-it-go-on.jpg

[Tribesman]

still nothing huh....
Still plenty. You still don't get it huh.:har:

Lets do two easy stages.
You link to some sites to support your views that actually contradict you views.
That means you are contradicting your own views.
That means you have proven your own view to be complete rubbish.
Simple huh.

You also link to sites which are bat excrement crazy.
That implies that you get your views from complete fruitcakes.
That suggests that your crazy ideas come into form because you read lots of loony rubbish.
Simple huh.

So the questions remain.
Who in the right mind would link to sites which are written by people who are clearly insane?
Who in their right mind would provide links to back up their claims if the links trash the claim?

There are only two possible answers.
1 Someone who doesn't read their own links
2 Someone who is not in their right mind.

So which is it Armistead?

[Flamebatter90]

6 million. You sure? If you believe mainstream reports.

EDIT: Always a lot of fun deciphering the real meaning or true meaning of words posted online.Quite. :O:

[Jimbuna]

If not, then stop the dribble and get on with talking about thread title.

Would be a lot wiser.



Sounds good to me.

[Bilge_Rat]

It's hard to get firm information on civlian deaths and causes of civilian deaths out of Iraq and Afghanistan because of the nature of the war, however the estimate on Iraqbodycount indicates from 2003-2011 about 15,050, which is less than I expected I must admit.


estimates of civilian casualties in the 12 year period from 2003-2011 actually vary wildly, although the number that makes the most sense is between 110,000 to 120,000. Out of those, you had studies that coalition forces were directly responsible for 10-15,000 deaths and the rest were killed in the civil war by other iraqis or foreign insurgents. More details here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

estimates of civilian deaths during the 14 year period that Hussein ruled from 1979 to 2003 also vary wildly between 250,000 and 1,000,000 directly killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq#Number_of_ Victims

[TarJak]

I don't think Christian terrorism exist, at least not in theology. You are simply plain wrong on that account.


You won't find Christ or the Apostles teaching to kill your enemies or apostates. You don't find Christ saying stoning women is OK. I won't argue that the New Testament has very little in the way of fomenting violence. The Old Testament on the other hand... Unfortunately this is where Christians terrorists sometime locate many of their justifications. You can't simply ignore the parts of the book that don't agree with your arguments.


The difference is, Islam and Muhammad are religions based on destroying your enemy, killing apostates, killing gays, etc. With Islam you can find terrorism in it's religion, In Christianity you cannot. Here is where you go wrong.

There are many contradictory passages in both the Bible and the Qur'an that both promote and preach against violence. The Qur'an is a vast, vague book, filled with poetry and contradictions (much like the Bible). You can find in it condemnations of war and violence and incitements to struggle, beautiful expressions of tolerance and stern measures against unbelievers. (much like the Bible).

Quotations from the Qur'an usually tell us more about the person who selected the passages than about Islam itself. Every religion is compatible with the best and the worst of humankind. Through its long history, Christianity has supported inquisitions and anti-Semitism, but also human rights and social welfare.

To me there are just violent nutters who like violence and use their religion as a means to justify it to themselves and the world.

As an athiest, to me this is anathema because God is a human construct designed to help some people navigate the world and to either placate or control groups of people by either promises of eternal life or bliss or nirvana or eternal damnation and punishment. (Note the implied violence in the latter option).


Obvious there have been mass acts of so called Christian terror and war that equals Islam, but it's not a teaching of Christianity. Thank you for agreeing with my original point. But they are not so-called Christian terrorists just because you don't agree with their twisted version of their religion.

There are equally many Muslims who would say that ISIS are not followers of Islam.


Any radical can claim a religion, the question is what does the religion teach itself! Do you really claim that Christ and Muhammad dealt with humanity the same? The so called radicals of Islam....are true Islam. The radicals claiming Christianity....are just radicals that can't look to the NT and find a basis for their evil actions.Wrong again. see above.


Keeping in mind that I'm a atheist/agnostic and don't believe in either, but know enough to know the difference in the teachings of the two..
Which are you? You can't be both unless you keep changing your mind on the subject. If you knew enough on the subject, you would not have made the ridiculous claims you did.

As an athiest, I have read the Bible, the Qur'an,the Torah and the Bhagavad gita. All interesting books with many insights into human behaviour and psychology, but as products of humans no more significant to me than a good Tom Clancy novel.

[Armistead]

You are simply plain wrong on that account.

I won't argue that the New Testament has very little in the way of fomenting violence. The Old Testament on the other hand... Unfortunately this is where Christians terrorists sometime locate many of their justifications. You can't simply ignore the parts of the book that don't agree with your arguments.

Here is where you go wrong.

There are many contradictory passages in both the Bible and the Qur'an that both promote and preach against violence. The Qur'an is a vast, vague book, filled with poetry and contradictions (much like the Bible). You can find in it condemnations of war and violence and incitements to struggle, beautiful expressions of tolerance and stern measures against unbelievers. (much like the Bible).

Quotations from the Qur'an usually tell us more about the person who selected the passages than about Islam itself. Every religion is compatible with the best and the worst of humankind. Through its long history, Christianity has supported inquisitions and anti-Semitism, but also human rights and social welfare.

To me there are just violent nutters who like violence and use their religion as a means to justify it to themselves and the world.

As an athiest, to me this is anathema because God is a human construct designed to help some people navigate the world and to either placate or control groups of people by either promises of eternal life or bliss or nirvana or eternal damnation and punishment. (Note the implied violence in the latter option).

Thank you for agreeing with my original point. But they are not so-called Christian terrorists just because you don't agree with their twisted version of their religion.

There are equally many Muslims who would say that ISIS are not followers of Islam.

Wrong again. see above.


Which are you? You can't be both unless you keep changing your mind on the subject. If you knew enough on the subject, you would not have made the ridiculous claims you did.

Christianity isn't based on OT judaism, and but of course the God of the OT was brutal and cruel. Sure, you can connect the two, but Christianity based on the NT is not the same as the OT. Christianity can at least offer a reformed basis for itself, Islam can't. The point is simply this, the Quran is a brutal book and Muhammad was a brutal warlord. OBL actually offers us a true version of Islam. If you want to know why radical Islam is mostly in the ME, that's because the true teaching stems from there. Those radicals in the ME basically are true Islam. The fact that they're more moderate Muslims through the world are using Islam as more of a devotion doesn't undo the true teachings of Islam.

Again, separate the people from the actual teachings of their divine word is what I'm saying. One group, Christianity, NT book teach love your enemy, peace, etc...The majority of Christians follow this belief, but yes, some claiming Christianity don't. But one can reasonably argue they aren't following the NT.....You can't do that with Islam.

I'm basically repeating this, a mere 5 minute youtube of Sam Harris...take time and see if we agree or not, he probably explains it better..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCOQukCn0kg

and this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=611kwe7IBhg

and if you can, watch just the last two minutes as Richard Dawkins really exposes Islam at it's core as a moderate muslim doesn't even know the punishment for apostasy..and notice the answer the other so called moderate male must admit...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Ks4pCO5O8

[Armistead]

Still plenty. You still don't get it huh.:har:

Lets do two easy stages.
You link to some sites to support your views that actually contradict you views.
That means you are contradicting your own views.
That means you have proven your own view to be complete rubbish.
Simple huh.

You also link to sites which are bat excrement crazy.
That implies that you get your views from complete fruitcakes.
That suggests that your crazy ideas come into form because you read lots of loony rubbish.
Simple huh.

So the questions remain.
Who in the right mind would link to sites which are written by people who are clearly insane?
Who in their right mind would provide links to back up their claims if the links trash the claim?

There are only two possible answers.
1 Someone who doesn't read their own links
2 Someone who is not in their right mind.

So which is it Armistead?


Not going to keep playing ring around the rosy with you. You quoted me where I said Christianity was a religion of peace in it's NT teachings, where Islam isn't comment....I've asked you several times to post the link where I contradict that......not going to ask again.

So post the link...I can find the one where we were discussing Islam number of killings, which has about 100 links inside of it and I certainly didn't read any of the others that didn't deal with the topic....If that is the best trivial point you can make....then have it with my full blessing and apology..

[Tribesman]

Christianity isn't based on OT judaism :har::har::har::har:
Wow, just wow:doh:
Hate to tell ya, but your link says otherwise.


and but of course the God of the OT was brutal and cruel Monotheism much?

Sure, you can connect the two Really, like as in connect through the core tenets of Christianity?:yep:

but Christianity based on the NT is not the same as the OT. Can you point out any Chtristian sect which doesn't have both in its bible?

Christianity can at least offer a reformed basis for itself, Islam can't. OMG are you completely ignorant?
What on earth do you think all the schisms in both religions are?

The point is simply this, the Quran is a brutal book and Muhammad was a brutal warlord Like Hitchens said, its based on the bible, and mirrors the bible in all aspects.
So , have you read any of these books or is it just like your links where you don't read them?

Again, separate the people from the actual teachings of their divine word is what I'm saying. No, that is the opposite of what you are saying.

But one can reasonably argue they aren't following the NT.....You can't do that with Islam.

Tarjak amongst many people in this topic have repeatedly shown you that is not the case, your own links show it too.

Not going to keep playing ring around the rosy with you. You quoted me where I said Christianity was a religion of peace in it's NT teachings, where Islam isn't comment....I've asked you several times to post the link where I contradict that......not going to ask again.
Already done.

So post the link...I can find the one where we were discussing Islam number of killings, which has about 100 links inside of it and I certainly didn't read any of the others that didn't deal with the topic... Is that the crazy link that was instantly ridiculed by Oberon?
If you follow any of the links off that you will just find more crazy sites.

No my dear, the links are the two I mentioned. Hitchens and Humphrys
What you need to do is actually watch the debate on the so called 9/11 mosque, and also take that somewhat Republican site and click on the Christianity page.
If you want to go further you can also click on the other religions too.
Though of course that would be out of the scope as this is about the big 3 and like Hitchens says, they are identical in this regards.

[Armistead]

:har::har::har::har:
Wow, just wow:doh:
Hate to tell ya, but your link says otherwise.


Monotheism much?

Really, like as in connect through the core tenets of Christianity?:yep:

Can you point out any Chtristian sect which doesn't have both in its bible?

OMG are you completely ignorant?
What on earth do you think all the schisms in both religions are?

Like Hitchens said, its based on the bible, and mirrors the bible in all aspects.
So , have you read any of these books or is it just like your links where you don't read them?

No, that is the opposite of what you are saying.

Tarjak amongst many people in this topic have repeatedly shown you that is not the case, your own links show it too.

Already done.

Is that the crazy link that was instantly ridiculed by Oberon?
If you follow any of the links off that you will just find more crazy sites.

No my dear, the links are the two I mentioned. Hitchens and Humphrys
What you need to do is actually watch the debate on the so called 9/11 mosque, and also take that somewhat Republican site and click on the Christianity page.
If you want to go further you can also click on the other religions too.
Though of course that would be out of the scope as this is about the big 3 and like Hitchens says, they are identical in this regards.

more rants...no links...Amazed you keep talking of links I posted that contradict myself, then won't provide them after being asked numerous times. The best you can say is the crazy link ridiculed by Oberon. Where in that link do I contradict myself? The link list the number of Islamic killings. Even Oberon was honest enough to admit he got his numbers wrong on the Bush and Blair christian killings in comparison.

And isn't it funny you deleted your one post claiming I posted a link Obama was a Muslim, something about the KKK and other so called outrageous claims I made...At least I was honest enough to admit one link I posted had 100 links in it that may say something crazy, but I looked at that link...it makes no mention of the things you claim....maybe why you deleted that one huh...It does mention the KKK, but simply said the KKK was bad, just Islam was worse...

So either back up your claims and show me contradicting myself or go away..

[Tribesman]

more rants...no links... But darling the links are already posted.
Are you unaware of what you have put in this topic?:har:

But I see you have a problem with English.
Rant
to talk loudly and in a way that shows anger : to complain in a way that is unreasonable.

You are the one who appears angry, your complaints are the ones that are unreasonable, or even completely beyond reason.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect you to have read links you put up yourself.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect your links to support your claims.
It is perfectly reasonable to laugh at you when you are completely unable to manage such basic things.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect you to have even the faintest idea what it is you are talking about.

The best you can say is the crazy link ridiculed by Oberon. You really have a problem with English don't you.
No my dear, the links are the two I mentioned. Hitchens and Humphrys
What you need to do is actually watch the debate on the so called 9/11 mosque, and also take that somewhat Republican site and click on the Christianity page.

Which would you prefer first Hitchens or Humphrys?
Both are very clear on it, but you would know that if you looked at your own links:know:

Hitchens does far better ripping into other religions.
So that raises the question, did you watch it or was it something you just decided to put up after finding it on one of your funny links?:har:

So either back up your claims and show me contradicting myself or go away..
But Armistead it has been shown repeatedly, and not just by me.
When so many people are telling you you are getting it completely arseways do you never consider actually thinking instead of simply carrying on with the same nonsense

[Armistead]

But darling the links are already posted.
Are you unaware of what you have put in this topic?:har:

But I see you have a problem with English.
Rant
to talk loudly and in a way that shows anger : to complain in a way that is unreasonable.

You are the one who appears angry, your complaints are the ones that are unreasonable, or even completely beyond reason.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect you to have read links you put up yourself.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect your links to support your claims.
It is perfectly reasonable to laugh at you when you are completely unable to manage such basic things.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect you to have even the faintest idea what it is you are talking about.

Anyone can clearly see I've asked you several times to post the links and back the claim that I contradicted myself. After asking you several times, I gave up and said I wouldn't ask again...But even then I've asked 3 more times today and STILL NOTHING.....why, because such doesn't exist......

The fact is you are so egotistical in this that if you could post a link I posted, we all know you would post it. Instead, you delete your own post and rant on..

So now I ask you one last time, back your claims or please just move along. I will be glad to look at any or my errors and admit them, even apologize for any mistake, but I will not keep playing your immature game...

[Armistead]

TM,,

I can't quote on this pc, but here is your claim.

I said
"I don't think Christian terrorism exist, at least not in theology. You won't find Christ or the Apostles teaching to kill your enemies or apostates. You don't find Christ saying stoning women is OK. The difference is, Islam and Muhammad are religions based on destroying your enemy, killing apostates, killing gays, etc. With Islam you can find terrorism in it's religion, In Christianity you cannot. Obvious there have been mass acts of so called Christian terror and war that equals Islam, but it's not a teaching of Christianity."

Your response
"Well done Armistead.
Irrefutable proof that you havn't even read your own links."

Show in either link I posted that contradicts this...or any link where I claim Obama a muslim..

[Armistead]

I will add, yes Hitchens rips into Christianity and I agree with him, but that isn't what I said, I said Christianity in it's theology, the NT teachings don't condone or teach terror by any group claiming to be be christian.. And anyone that is honest has to admit the divine word of Islam does teach these things. The best you can do is confuse Judaism with Christianity..

You say
"What you need to do is actually watch the debate on the so called 9/11 mosque, and also take that somewhat Republican site and click on the Christianity page."

Which link is this? Are you saying I need to go to my link, find another link in that, once there, find yet another link.....?

Heck, I could do that with anything. I was watching youtube on a man training a lion and clicking links within links, before I was over I was at a Asian lesbian porn site {which I enjoyed by the way} But I'm still smart enough to know the difference between a lion trainer and bush diving....the question is.......can you?

[Tribesman]

Anyone can clearly see I've asked you several times to post the links and back the claim that I contradicted myself. After asking you several times, I gave up and said I wouldn't ask again...But even then I've asked 3 more times today and STILL NOTHING.....why, because such doesn't exist......
Well my dear what you need to do is look at the topic, there is this person called Armistead who has put up these links for your perusal.
He provides the Humphrys one in post#62(the same post which has the loony link) the second is the Hitchens one he kindly provides in post#75.

Be so kind as to read and watch them.
Be sure to express your gratitude to him for providing the material:rotfl2:

or any link where I claim Obama a muslim..
Oh sorry, that's on your other link, that FREEEEEDOM one.
You know, the birther nuts
Obama is a sodomite and a muslim, he is militanly turning the whole world into gay muslims.:rotfl2:
Strange story isn't it.
The author describes herself as a Christian, you know one of those Christians who are big into Leviticus.
I like that other Christian featured, though he is mainly on WND(also appears on your Humphrys link). big into Leviticus, he really sings the praises of Christian law in Uganda which is killing the woopsies just like the bible says to
Come to think of it I like all the Christians featured on that site, they are all crazy loony fundamentalist extremists.
Thank you for posting such a wonderful conservative news source

[STEED]

Iraq asks US to launch air strikes against militants
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27905849


:hmmm:

[Armistead]

Well my dear what you need to do is look at the topic, there is this person called Armistead who has put up these links for your perusal.
He provides the Humphrys one in post#62(the same post which has the loony link) the second is the Hitchens one he kindly provides in post#75.

Be so kind as to read and watch them.
Be sure to express your gratitude to him for providing the material:rotfl2:


Oh sorry, that's on your other link, that FREEEEEDOM one.
You know, the birther nuts
Obama is a sodomite and a muslim, he is militanly turning the whole world into gay muslims.:rotfl2:
Strange story isn't it.
The author describes herself as a Christian, you know one of those Christians who are big into Leviticus.
I like that other Christian featured, though he is mainly on WND(also appears on your Humphrys link). big into Leviticus, he really sings the praises of Christian law in Uganda which is killing the woopsies just like the bible says to
Come to think of it I like all the Christians featured on that site, they are all crazy loony fundamentalist extremists.
Thank you for posting such a wonderful conservative news source

Again, you won't show where I contradict myself, just make mention of some links within links....within links..

Honestly, Tarjack and Oberon are at least intellectually honest they don't go to extreme nonsense to prove a mundane point. Seems your only debate tactic is silliness to the point of confusion....Links within links within links.....it seems you don't know the difference between lion training and porn afteralll....

Good day...:salute:

[Tribesman]

Again, you won't show where I contradict myself, just make mention of some links within links....within links..

No, a video is a video if you want to do it easily.
It is sufficient by itself. All the rest just illustrates the wealth of information you have provided which proves you wrong.

[Armistead]

No, a video is a video if you want to do it easily.
It is sufficient by itself. All the rest just illustrates the wealth of information you have provided which proves you wrong.

still nothing.....anyways, if I get bored again to the level or pettiness that I can argue with you, then maybe I will discuss more, but I'm done for now.

[Wolferz]

No need to hit them ISIS boys. They're starting to figure out that their leader is nothing more than an opportunistic tycoon looking to expand his wealth and create his own little empire.
Who's your Baghdadi?:haha:

[Tribesman]

still nothing How many times do you have to be told?
Darling watch the video you posted in post #75, it alone is entirely sufficient to show that you have been talking crap throughout this topic.
If you had watched it before posting it you would have realised that.

The fact is you are so egotistical in this that if you could post a link I posted, we all know you would post it. Instead, you delete your own post and rant on..

I just noticed, your mind reading is crap and now you are resorting to complete bull excrement.
Young man you are ranting, if in doubt you can always use the definition provided.

[eddie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27905849


:hmmm:

Makes me sick when I think of all the time and money that went into training the Iraqi Army, all the lives that were lost in the Iraqi wars. And now when the going gets tough, the Iraqi army does what it does best, throw down their weapons and run like a bunch cowards they are! And now they want us to fight their war for them?:down: I'm sure everyone in the UK is ready to send their troops back there, about as much as we do in the States, in a pigs arse we will!!:nope::nope:

[mapuc]

According to the Danish News Iraqi government has formally requested the United States to launch air strikes against ISIS

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27905849


Will the U.S. fulfill this wish?

I'm 99% sure that they are going to carry out some bombing raids against this ISIS-group

Markus

[eddie]

They are talking about it over here Markus, but no definite answer yet. Like Oberon said, you can not win a war with just a bombing campaign. You have to win it on the ground, and the Iraqi's are too scared to do that!

[Oberon]

Can't say I blame them, their enemy is better funded than them, better lead than them, and better prepared than them.

[TarJak]

Not too mention the fact the Iraqi army is made up of a cross section of society meaning there is significant distrust between the Shia and Sunni members, meaning unit cohesiveness it's going to be low. If you don't trust the bloke with the rifle next to you it isn't going to be easy to fight the mob of blokes with rifles coming at you.

[August]

The only faction over there that I care about is the Kurds and it looks like they may come through this in fairly good shape.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/06/16/iraqi-kurdistan-set-to-become-an-independent-world-oil-power/

[Armistead]

They are talking about it over here Markus, but no definite answer yet. Like Oberon said, you can not win a war with just a bombing campaign. You have to win it on the ground, and the Iraqi's are too scared to do that!

Well, I do think airstrikes would keep Baghdad safe, add some drone attacks and certainly special forces will be in the area. Hopefully 10 armed civilians are worth 1 ISIS fighting. As far as the rest of the north, we could be seeing a new state of terror that will have to be dealt with. It may be the large civil war coming sorts it out.

I did hear on the news ISIS is attacking large oil fields, trying to destroy or cripple the Iraqi economy...and of course drive prices up worldwide..Not sure how true it is..

[Dread Knot]

Well, I do think airstrikes would keep Baghdad safe, add some drone attacks and certainly special forces will be in the area. As far as the rest of the north, we could be seeing a new state of terror that will have to be dealt with. It may be the large civil war coming sorts it out.



I don't have the link handy, but in a CNN debate involving retired senior US intelligence and military analysts, who were on opposing positions regarding intervention, both agreed that while drone strikes can be accurate, they need human intel for targeting. They both also agreed that air strikes with normal aircraft would cause significant civilian casualties due to their wider targeting.

Basically, the come-away is that absent boots on the ground, pot shots from the air will be entirely ineffective, or more harmful than helpful.

If the option is at this juncture to team up with Maliki and Iran against ISIL, which seems to be the case in the short term, then the US is best served by staying the heck out. Best to set up a rapid strike team in coop with the Kurds in case a concrete opportunity arises to change the course of events in one location or another, and otherwise monitor events as they unfold from a base in Kurdistan.

The last thing the US needs to see is a much strengthened Iran-Iraq Shi'ite alliance emerging to crush not only ISIL but all Sunnis in general, moderate or otherwise.

---And if and when the Saudis come begging late in the game for their American friends to support Sunni interests by proxy like they always do, this time they should be told in no uncertain terms that any US support comes at the price of discontinuing all financing of radical madrassas in South Asia, plus no further support for Palestinian TV programming in support of terrorism. Otherwise, zilch, go cry a river.

[mapuc]

This is what I have learned or understand from the news here in Denmark and Sweden regarding the crisis in Iraq

If ISIS would have success and get control over Iraq and Syria you can bet on Iran and perhaps Jordan will be next. This is the reason why Iran are willing to help Iraq

Furthermore no leader in West or around the middle east are interested in a superpower of terrorist(Iraq-Syria and maybe Iran and Jordan) that is to be worse than Afghanistan was when the Taliban ruled

Or maybe I have misunderstood it all

Markus

[TarJak]

Interesting 2 part article on the problems derived from the WWI borders drawn in the ME.
http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-946052.html

http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-946052-2.html

[Armistead]

I don't have the link handy, but in a CNN debate involving retired senior US intelligence and military analysts, who were on opposing positions regarding intervention, both agreed that while drone strikes can be accurate, they need human intel for targeting. They both also agreed that air strikes with normal aircraft would cause significant civilian casualties due to their wider targeting.

Basically, the come-away is that absent boots on the ground, pot shots from the air will be entirely ineffective, or more harmful than helpful.

If the option is at this juncture to team up with Maliki and Iran against ISIL, which seems to be the case in the short term, then the US is best served by staying the heck out. Best to set up a rapid strike team in coop with the Kurds in case a concrete opportunity arises to change the course of events in one location or another, and otherwise monitor events as they unfold from a base in Kurdistan.

The last thing the US needs to see is a much strengthened Iran-Iraq Shi'ite alliance emerging to crush not only ISIL but all Sunnis in general, moderate or otherwise.

---And if and when the Saudis come begging late in the game for their American friends to support Sunni interests by proxy like they always do, this time they should be told in no uncertain terms that any US support comes at the price of discontinuing all financing of radical madrassas in South Asia, plus no further support for Palestinian TV programming in support of terrorism. Otherwise, zilch, go cry a river.

I'm sure we have special forces on the ground and things spinning in space. I think for us the goal in the area will always be short term, dancing with the devil that best suits us in the moment. Right now ISIS is a problem, so I suspect we will support the fight against it and side with even Iran... Sort of like letting them stay at it with no one gaining true power, picking sides as we go...

[TarJak]

But to go to the root question,why is it the US's problem at all? Didn't they hand over to Iraq? Other than securing oil supply, I don't see a cogent reason for the US, the UK or anyone else to get involved. Having screwed it up enough in in the first attempts, why would any sane person think giving it another go will be any more successful?

[Armistead]

But to go to the root question,why is it the US's problem at all? Didn't they hand over to Iraq? Other than securing oil supply, I don't see a cogent reason for the US, the UK or anyone else to get involved. Having screwed it up enough in in the first attempts, why would any sane person think giving it another go will be any more successful?

Well, I think it speaks of the insanity and the failure of the war in the first place. But we are where we are and it also speaks to the blunder of how we handled it. Just think, billions spent, 1000's of soldiers dead for really nothing. Years of work and rebuilding unraveled in mere weeks.

Again, it seems this area is not about success, but controlling chaos. No doubt this could grow and spill into other bordering nations. It may be in our and the worlds best interest to let the muslim sects continue fighting and killing each other, none ever gaining full control. It's either that or the next time we go in, we get the job done, unlimted warfare so terrible they won't war for a long time, take over the govt, write and enforce a constitution, occupy with power and control. Simply become a Saddam, but hopefully be able to indoctrinate coming generations.

The problem is with this, the thinking may be in the dark ages, the weapons are not. If the world doesn't fully address the Mideast, eventually we're going to face another world war there and acts of terror that include WMD's
Other older religions have evolved, I don't know that we have time to wait for Islam to do so.

Like it or not, I think I'm correct about Islam, that no amount of moderation can change what it really is and what it really stands for as a religious belief itself. We can act now, probably won't, but eventually we will and in a big way, but most likely after we pay a big price. Right now we seem to have a president that never seems to have a clue what's going on or simply doesn't care.

Anyway, prepare for higher oil prices and more inflation regardless.

"The threat to the U.S. from global jihadist groups has escalated in the past three years, with the number of groups increasing by more than 50% and the estimated number of militants doubling, according to a report to be released on Thursday."

http://online.wsj.com/articles/jihadist-groups-threat-to-u-s-grows-report-says-1401852049

[Tribesman]

Like it or not, I think I'm correct about Islam, that no amount of moderation can change what it really is and what it really stands for as a religious belief itself.
Yes, despite your proven ignorance of the subject, and the wealth of contradictory evidence you think you are correct.
Kinda like the "faith" of a fundamentalist.

[Jimbuna]

Makes me sick when I think of all the time and money that went into training the Iraqi Army, all the lives that were lost in the Iraqi wars. And now when the going gets tough, the Iraqi army does what it does best, throw down their weapons and run like a bunch cowards they are! And now they want us to fight their war for them?:down: I'm sure everyone in the UK is ready to send their troops back there, about as much as we do in the States, in a pigs arse we will!!:nope::nope:

^+1

[Wolferz]

We'll send Iron Man.:up:

[Tribesman]

The only faction over there that I care about is the Kurds and it looks like they may come through this in fairly good shape.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/06/16/iraqi-kurdistan-set-to-become-an-independent-world-oil-power/
Depends on which faction of the Kurds.

I am sure you are not wanting the Marxist faction to do well, nor the Iranian backed faction, those allied with Assad wouldn't be a great one either.
One problem with the ME/N.Africa which was illustrated well in Lebanon during the civil war and again more recently in Iran, Sudan, Iraq, Libya and Syria is the complexity of all the different factions and their ever changing alliances.

I suppose another more localised illustration would be some in the US wanting to back the Iraqi based Iranian anti US/anti Iranian faction or the emerging Iranian/US alliance against the Saudi backed Fundy nuts as Saudi is supposed to be an ally and Iran the enemy.
What a complex world we live on.

[Dread Knot]

One thing is for sure. This conflict is putting regional rivalries into ever sharper relief, defining the players more clearly and flushing out funding sources. After all, it was rich Arab Gulf states that gave ISIL and other rebel groups their substantial start-up cash to fight Assad in Syria. I certainly hope that at the very least, the region begins to openly recognize that not all it's difficulties start and end with the West or Israel, and there is some work to be done in-house, so to speak. I'm not holding my breath though.

I also think the seeds of an internal struggle within the rebel movement are clearly there. Movements in the Middle East are rarely monolithic and working at cross purposes is an enduring tradition. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to eventually see in Iraq, the same sort of chaos and in-fighting that afflicts all the opposition groups in the anti-government uprising in Syria.

[Wolferz]

Let's send our eskimoo commando. :doh:



http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/Wolferz_2007/palinbikini.jpg

That should put them on the right path.

[Sailor Steve]

Or we could just send 'em a copy of photoshop.

[nikimcbee]

Was that from your personal collection Wolferz?

[Armistead]

Oh, the thought of Sarah Palin in the WH with her hand near a nuclear button. I can see it now..

"In Jesus name, Amen"

Push......BOOM...

[Sailor Steve]

Do you really think Palin would nuke somebody she can see from her front porch? Just how stupid do you think she...

Don't answer that!

[Armistead]

One thing is for sure. This conflict is putting regional rivalries into ever sharper relief, defining the players more clearly and flushing out funding sources. After all, it was rich Arab Gulf states that gave ISIL and other rebel groups their substantial start-up cash to fight Assad in Syria. I certainly hope that at the very least, the region begins to openly recognize that not all it's difficulties start and end with the West or Israel, and there is some work to be done in-house, so to speak. I'm not holding my breath though.

I also think the seeds of an internal struggle within the rebel movement are clearly there. Movements in the Middle East are rarely monolithic and working at cross purposes is an enduring tradition. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to eventually see in Iraq, the same sort of chaos and in-fighting that afflicts all the opposition groups in the anti-government uprising in Syria.

Agreed, but our goal really needs to change from trying to change the culture in Iraq at this moment and work in our interest. It may be in our best interest that these groups fight each other, wasting energy and resources on each other, but we must also be willing to strike as needed to keep a balance of power between the fighting factions until they resolve their CW...

Anyway, our great leader is getting ready to speak on the subject...

[Wolferz]

Was that from your personal collection Wolferz?

Would you hit that?

With a baseball bat?:haha:

If we sent her over there it would keep them all busy chasing her to put a burqa on her.:har:

[Wolferz]

<snip>

Anyway, our great leader is getting ready to speak on the subject...

He'll use his usual two word explanation...

"It's complicated"

[nikimcbee]

Oh, the thought of Sarah Palin in the WH with her hand near a nuclear button. I can see it now..

"In Jesus name, Amen"

Push......BOOM...
:agree:

[nikimcbee]

Would you hit that?

With a baseball bat?:haha:

If we sent her over there it would keep them all busy chasing her to put a burqa on her.:har:


..or we could send her over there to do this:
http://mustbethistalltoride.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/jehovahs-witnesses.jpg

THAT would make their heads spin!:haha:

[Armistead]

Would you hit that?

With a baseball bat?:haha:

If we sent her over there it would keep them all busy chasing her to put a burqa on her.:har:


Well, I would rather see her in porn than in the WH. I mean, if you can get by that stupid look on her face, shes not bad to look at.

[nikimcbee]

Well, I would rather see her in porn than in the WH. I mean, if you can get by that stupid look on her face, shes not bad to look at.

Her Fargo accent drives me batty.

[nikimcbee]

He'll use his usual two word explanation...

"It's complicated"

I was gunna guess "Bush's fault.":dead:

[Oberon]

..or we could send her over there to do this:


THAT would make their heads spin!:haha:

Nah, they're used to being offended by stuff from Denmark, remember?

[Jimbuna]

If the 300 US military advisers are attacked the air strikes will follow soon enough.

[Platapus]

If the 300 US military advisers are attacked the air strikes will follow soon enough.

Sorta like a tethered goat?

[Jimbuna]

Sorta like a tethered goat?

Great analogy :yep:

[Dread Knot]

Great analogy :yep:

Bodes well for the future.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-8iduNQK6nsE/Uy5cXpNE2CI/AAAAAAABojE/nGkuaCH2lQk/w500/4108c028b222b658d0842f3ad124be1f6c3aa929d013b353c8 14d6ac66bcc01e.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

As soon as I heard of the 'advisors', my first thought was "Shades of 1962! Barack, can you spell 'Vietnam'?"

On the other hand, we're still in Iraq, so I don't see how we can make it worse. I'm sure we can, I just don't see it. :dead:

[nikimcbee]

If the 300 US military advisers are attacked the air strikes will follow soon enough.
Remember who the Commander in Chief is.

Will they be protected like the guys in Benghazi?

I mean, if our non-military personnel get attacked during the Leader's 4 rounds of golf....

Michelle will be forced to do a hash tag sign in response.
#whatdoyouguyswantnow

[Jimbuna]

Remember who the Commander in Chief is.

Will they be protected like the guys in Benghazi?

I mean, if our non-military personnel get attacked during the Leader's 4 rounds of golf....

Michelle will be forced to do a hash tag sign in response.
#whatdoyouguyswantnow

I'm not so sure he'll be all that keen to make the same mistakes (some popular opinion) again.

[soopaman2]

I have a simple opinion on a complex matter.

Dave rabbit, was an Airforce Sgt. in Vietnam who operated a bootleg radio station out of a brothel, he lined the walls with matresses to keep out the moans from his pirated broadcast. He played acid rock, not the sanitized Adrian Cronauer crap.

His deal with the Madame?

She got to keep the matresses, great deal for both!:up:

Anyways one of his bits is called "sayings from latrine walls"

And one that applies to this is....(can I catch a pardon on astericks, its in context? *begs*)

Fighting for someone elses freedom is like ******* for someone elses virginity.

I stand by the wisdom of the great Dave Rabbit.
If they wanted it, thier army would not have stripped and dropped weapons. Let them lay in that piss soaked bed they made for themselves.

[Wolferz]

If they wanted it, thier army would not have stripped and dropped weapons. Let them lay in that piss soaked bed they made for themselves.


They won't mind. It's goat piss.:shifty:

[Armistead]

Really getting crazy over there now with with players getting involved....Iran may come out the big winner when this is over.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/6/13/iraq-shias-isil.html

[Tribesman]

Really getting crazy over there now with with players getting involved....Iran may come out the big winner when this is over.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/6/13/iraq-shias-isil.html
Iran became the big winner the day your commander in chief thought "its not complicated".

[Oberon]

The Middle Eastern World, it is exploding
Violence flarin', bullets loading
You're old enough to kill, and for votin'
You don't believe in war, but what's that gun you're totin'
And even the Nile river has bodies floatin'

But you tell me, over and over and over again, my friend
You don't believe, we're on the eve of destruction.

[Stealhead]

The Middle Eastern World, it is exploding
Violence flarin', bullets loading
You're old enough to kill, and for votin'
You don't believe in war, but what's that gun you're totin'
And even the Nile river has bodies floatin'

But you tell me, over and over and over again, my friend
You don't believe, we're on the eve of destruction.

Written in 1965.Pretty sure it is "old enough to kill but not for votin" though:03:
Had to 21 in the US at that time to vote but only 17 with parents permission to kill or 18 to be drafted.

[Jimbuna]

The Middle Eastern World, it is exploding
Violence flarin', bullets loading
You're old enough to kill, and for votin'
You don't believe in war, but what's that gun you're totin'
And even the Nile river has bodies floatin'

But you tell me, over and over and over again, my friend
You don't believe, we're on the eve of destruction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdeYfV4TD1U

[Oberon]

Written in 1965.Pretty sure it is "old enough to kill but not for votin" though:03:
Had to 21 in the US at that time to vote but only 17 with parents permission to kill or 18 to be drafted.

Yup, I figured I'd have to change a few things to bring it up to date. :03:

Good song though, I have it in my 'Nam' folder on my mp3 player. :yep:

[Armistead]

Could be interesting to see what happens when and if this spills over into Jordan and SA. Seems ISIS is moving that way, gaining more cities. I bet we'll be bombing before the week is over.

If it spills into Jordan and SA....guess who they'll be calling on for help.

[Wolferz]

Could be interesting to see what happens when and if this spills over into Jordan and SA. Seems ISIS is moving that way, gaining more cities. I bet we'll be bombing before the week is over.

If it spills into Jordan and SA....guess who they'll be calling on for help.


Israel?:D

[Stealhead]

Saudi Arabia I assume you mean? I doubt it the house of Saud has been very good at staying in power for some time now.Also Saudi Arabia is a Sunni majority country anyway.From an unofficial standpoint a lot of support for ISIS more than likely comes from Saudi Arabia or at least Saudi citizens.

ISIS is trying to establish Sunni control in Iraq.That s why Iran is actually a frien-a-me with the US in this particular situation.It would be a problem for them if suddenly thousands of ****e Iraqi started flooding into Iran.It also weakens Iranian hegemony in the region.

[Armistead]

Israel?:D

LMAO....good one W

[Armistead]

Saudi Arabia I assume you mean? I doubt it the house of Saud has been very good at staying in power for some time now.Also Saudi Arabia is a Sunni majority country anyway.From an unofficial standpoint a lot of support for ISIS more than likely comes from Saudi Arabia or at least Saudi citizens.

I would be more concern of a greater CW spreading. In the end you'll have Iran supporting Shia. This CW could impode the entire region.

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/12/5804184/iran-deployed-troops-iran-isis

[Stealhead]

What is CW? Cold War,Cool Wallaby,Crazy Whiplash....

Think you jumped the gun on my complete post I lost connection.Of course Iran is going to support Shia in Iraq they already have been for sometime.

[Armistead]

CW ---Civil War

Edit adding.

Iran sending elite troops in now, possible America will be bombing soon if ISIS is getting into the borders of the other nations. Iran and America fighting same enemy...Gonna be tough, considering who our so called allies are in the region.

[Stealhead]

Sounds good to me let them do most of the fighting.

The article you linked is dated the 12th of June and it is using another outlet as a source so it is old news they are not sending they already have sent they are already present.And to some extent persons that represent the interests of Iran have been in Iraq for a some time at least since 2008.

If anything it already is a civil war an expansion of the civil war in Syria and a group taking advantage of the situation.(the weakness of regional governments).

Humans fighting humans wonder why it even makes the news anymore to honest.

[Sailor Steve]

What is CW? Cold War,Cool Wallaby,Crazy Whiplash...

CW ---Civil War
I modern parlance CW stands for Conventional Wisdom - that which is commonly accepted...and usually wrong.

[CaptainMattJ.]

John McCain is on a broken record loop about arming the rebels, yet im pretty sure he's old enough to remember how well that played out the last time we armed the "rebels".

I don't know whats so damn hard about letting these angry hateful militants kill each other. We cant force these people to get along no matter how much we bomb them and force democracy down their throats. All intervention ends up doing is causing more instability. The middle east has been an armpit for centuries. Let them solve their own petty, ridiculous problems (assuming that's even possible). They dont want our help and we shouldn't be trying. Their oil sure as heck was never worth a single casualty from ANY outside country. If we really are that dependent on oil from the ME, then its the only reason we need to ween ourselves off the oil teet and switch to sustainable energy. Anything and everything to completely disassociate ourselves with that volatile butthole of the world. Whenever they decide to advance from the dark ages, THEN we can talk about diplomacy.

[eddie]

I was wondering when this POS would show up again over there! Should be hearing about bombings in Baghdad again real soon.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/anti-u-s-cleric-muqtada-al-sadr-retakes-stage-amid-n138406

[mapuc]

This is my guess and it's nothing more than guessing

The way ISIS is going to take control over countries in the middle east and maybe north Africa

Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar. Then S.A

I can't decide if they go east and north or south and west

If East and North

Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan a.s.o

If the other way
Egypt, Turkey, a.s.o

Just my guess

I haven't mentioned Israel 'cause I don't know how they will react if and if they will be attacked.

Markus

[Oberon]

I doubt that the west will let them get that far, the last thing the west and western backed allies in the region want to see is a united islamic caliphate. Israel would go Samson Option rather than see such a thing happen, likely dropping two nukes a piece on Mecca and Medina which would fracture the Middle East and turn it into a sea of fire for decades, if not centuries.

[mapuc]

I doubt that the west will let them get that far, the last thing the west and western backed allies in the region want to see is a united islamic caliphate. Israel would go Samson Option rather than see such a thing happen, likely dropping two nukes a piece on Mecca and Medina which would fracture the Middle East and turn it into a sea of fire for decades, if not centuries.


Are you really sure !?

'cause here in Denmark and Sweden the politicians can't decide which leg they should be standing on.

A former Danish politician Naser Khader who's from Syra, are now working in USA for some organisation, is using capital letters for the west to intervene in Syria and against ISIS..seems like no one is paying him any attention.

Markus

[Armistead]

I know many feel if we kept troops there things would be calmer, but it's possible they would've gotten drug into the war when it spilled from Syria to Iraq.

It's a hard call to do nothing if the region implodes, I know I don't want gas prices to double. Not to mention it would drive prices high in numerous markets that have anything to do with transport...which is most of them.

This could easily turn into a major war....if Israel has to get involved to protect itself...I know I've read ISIS has plans for mass suicide attacks against Israel....

I think it's clear this is gonna spill over and it won't be long we'll be getting the call...

[nikimcbee]

I modern parlance CW stands for Conventional Wisdom - that which is commonly accepted...and usually wrong.

I voted civil war.:/\\k:

[Dread Knot]

Are you really sure !?

'cause here in Denmark and Sweden the politicians can't decide which leg they should be standing on.

A former Danish politician Naser Khader who's from Syra, are now working in USA for some organisation, is using capital letters for the west to intervene in Syria and against ISIS..seems like no one is paying him any attention.

Markus

I seriously doubt that ISIS could even overrun Bagdad. Last I looked, ISIS has about 4,000 actual fighters in its ranks. Baghdad is a city of over 7 million. Since it's majority Shia, I very much doubt the residents will accept ISIS rule without serious resistance, even if the US-trained army flees. Nor will ISIS likely be able to extend its reach south into Shia majority areas.

Policy this time will not be designed to placate Turkey, so an independent Kurdistan is a distinct possibility, as it provides a potential ally, more stable than Iraq and next to Iran, apart from being a source of oil. Once ISIS forces are reliably spotted by Bagdad forces, the US will probably use bombing raids and drones.

I expect a blind eye will be turned as Assad becomes the temporary proxy for a mix of external interests, attacking ISIS from the rear. ISIS might eventually fall, but not before a late push by the Kurds consolidates a bit more territory for them. Iraq will regain the rest. Russia likely backs this plan due to the restoration of Syria.

If Putin is not entirely mentally ill from narcissism, Russia will stick to running arms to Syria through Turkey. He seems so twitchy lately, that he is the wild card in the deck, in my opinion.

[Tribesman]

I was wondering when this POS would show up again over there! Should be hearing about bombings in Baghdad again real soon.

Apart from his short time in Iran he has been there all along

[mapuc]

I seriously doubt that ISIS could even overrun Bagdad. Last I looked, ISIS has about 4,000 actual fighters in its ranks. Baghdad is a city of over 7 million. Since it's majority Shia, I very much doubt the residents will accept ISIS rule without serious resistance, even if the US-trained army flees. Nor will ISIS likely be able to extend its reach south into Shia majority areas.

Policy this time will not be designed to placate Turkey, so an independent Kurdistan is a distinct possibility, as it provides a potential ally, more stable than Iraq and next to Iran, apart from being a source of oil. Once ISIS forces are reliably spotted by Bagdad forces, the US will probably use bombing raids and drones.

I expect a blind eye will be turned as Assad becomes the temporary proxy for a mix of external interests, attacking ISIS from the rear. ISIS might eventually fall, but not before a late push by the Kurds consolidates a bit more territory for them. Iraq will regain the rest. Russia likely backs this plan due to the restoration of Syria.

If Putin is not entirely mentally ill from narcissism, Russia will stick to running arms to Syria through Turkey. He seems so twitchy lately, that he is the wild card in the deck, in my opinion.


Maybe you're right about that. I'm absolutely no expert that's why I just guessed before and wrote about the politicians standpoint here.

One thing though it seem that where ever they go, the Iraqi army and others flee for their life.

Markus

[Oberon]

Are you really sure !?

'cause here in Denmark and Sweden the politicians can't decide which leg they should be standing on.

A former Danish politician Naser Khader who's from Syra, are now working in USA for some organisation, is using capital letters for the west to intervene in Syria and against ISIS..seems like no one is paying him any attention.

Markus

By western nations I mean US, UK, possibly France. The usual ones.

[Dread Knot]

One thing though it seem that where ever they go, the Iraqi army and others flee for their life.


A lot of the fault seems to lie with Maliki. He choose generals based on political reasons, not competence, and he ruled in a sectarian, authoritarian way to freeze the Sunnis out of the political process. When front line soldiers see their leaders cutting and running for fear of their lives they're not inclined to fight themselves.

[mapuc]

By western nations I mean US, UK, possibly France. The usual ones.


Now that you mention it

"We will not act on our own, but is USA decide to...and ask us for help we will....of course look at it with a positive view" Said by the Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs

Markus

[yubba]

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/06/24/homeland-security-seeks-thousands-of-pairs-of-underwear-for-detained-immigrants/

[TarJak]

By western nations I mean US, UK, possibly France. The usual ones.

We've already done our "me too", and sent a detachment to protect embassy staff and prepare plans for pulling them out should things go more pear shaped than they already have.

[mapuc]

The other night when I was watching the news they had a issue about the situation in Iraq and that xxx Iraqi soldiers had been killed, according to ISIS

Didn't Djingis Khan do something like that? kill a lot and let one of more soldier or person live, so they could tell others how terrible Djingis was

Markus

[August]

Policy this time will not be designed to placate Turkey, so an independent Kurdistan is a distinct possibility, as it provides a potential ally, more stable than Iraq and next to Iran, apart from being a source of oil.

Turkey has been getting along pretty well with the Kurds lately. They're doing lots of business with that pipeline and all so you may just be right.

[Wolferz]

I hear that the Iraqi army is asking for more support from us in the way of equipment and supplies.
Reading between the lines...
So we can drop it all for ISIS when we run away.:-?

[mapuc]

Got this link from an Danish Article

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/will-isis-plan-a-911-style-terror-plot-against-the-u-s/

I claim that it can't happen or our authorities have told us a big lie.

Markus

[Armistead]

I hear that the Iraqi army is asking for more support from us in the way of equipment and supplies.
Reading between the lines...
So we can drop it all for ISIS when we run away.:-?


be interesting is ISIS shoots down a Syrian plane with one of our stingers..

[Wolferz]

Brought to you by the CIA.:shifty:

Keeping things churned up for maximum profits.

[Platapus]

Got this link from an Danish Article

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/will-isis-plan-a-911-style-terror-plot-against-the-u-s/

I claim that it can't happen or our authorities have told us a big lie.

Markus


What possible reason would ISIS have for committing such a act of terrorism against the US? It would serve no purpose other than to bring the wrath of the US on ISIS.

Right now the US is tired (physically and emotionally) with our involvement in the middle east. This works to ISIS advantage.

If you are stealing strawberry's, don't kick the wasp nest. :know:

The leadership of ISIS may be religious nutters but they ain't stupid.

[Dread Knot]

Brought to you by the CIA.:shifty:

Keeping things churned up for maximum profits.

Seriously, you do have to wonder if there is one person at the helm anymore. Or just monkeys banging on keyboards.

For example, in Syria to fight Assad, we were engaged in arming, training and funding essentially the same people whom the new Egyptian regime is about to hang and whom we are considering bombing in Northern Iraq.

In Iraq, we are about to become engaged in supporting the regime we installed and which is now the close ally of the Syrian and Iranian regimes we despise, and that we have been trying for years to replace.

In Iran, we appear to be on the point of reversing our policy of undermining its government and policies and seeking its help to defeat the insurgents in Iraq.

Then we wonder why it's all so complicated and expensive and it never resolves itself. :-?

[mapuc]

What possible reason would ISIS have for committing such a act of terrorism against the US? It would serve no purpose other than to bring the wrath of the US on ISIS.

Right now the US is tired (physically and emotionally) with our involvement in the middle east. This works to ISIS advantage.

If you are stealing strawberry's, don't kick the wasp nest. :know:

The leadership of ISIS may be religious nutters but they ain't stupid.

Do you and the others here have any idea of how much a majority of the Muslim in the Muslims world hate USA- There's you reason

Said in another way, they don't care if they should lose 10-20 or 30000 as long they can stick a bomb in the heart of USA.

But as mentioned before they can't do it or they will not succeed, if they want to do it.

I have through our media here in Denmark and Sweden been bombarded that this massive surveillance in our life is to protect us and to prevent an another 9/11

Markus

[Oberon]

I smell a slight bit of generalisation here...

[mapuc]

I smell a slight bit of generalisation here...


I will not or are trying not to generalize, but after having talking to a few Muslim from that area and been watching the news from that area throughout the years I have come to that conclusion that a majority hate USA.

It's important to see the different between the ordinary people and the government. The Government in Jordan, S.A and Iran etc know it's important to have a good relationship with the west( in some countries it's of course inofficial)...Some or majority of the people on the other hand...

If a worse case senario should happen, USA and the West will not have any "good relation" with some of the countries in that area.

Please do free to correct me if I'm wrong

Edit: Forgot something. I don't know if its the ordinary American they hate or if it is the US government and their politics they hate. If I recall my friends from down there, it's the government and the politics they have been using throughout the years.

Markus

[soopaman2]

I can actually see ISIS wanting to work with the US.

Silly, ok, but hear me out.

They are fighting a civil war, they are fighting for their own government, the people can reject them and fight back, 90% of the country is armed, many more have nice buried stashes we didn't get.

Why poke at us, and make us come back? We are not coming back as nice as we were the first time. hearts and minds will be down the crapper.

Now if we didn't support this jerk al Maliki, and his exclusive government, then maybe the sunnis would not be throwing a fit?

Picture this, Canada invades us and somehow wins, they then ban republicans from government, and only allow liberal representation....

Would you be angry at the republicans for rising up, wanting thier voice heard?

You can switch my examples, the libs would fight too, anyone would.

Add in a religion that encourages dying and killing to spread the word, and you got a perfect storm.

[Oberon]

I will not or are trying not to generalize, but after having talking to a few Muslim from that area and been watching the news from that area throughout the years I have come to that conclusion that a majority hate USA.

It's important to see the different between the ordinary people and the government. The Government in Jordan, S.A and Iran etc know it's important to have a good relationship with the west( in some countries it's of course inofficial)...Some or majority of the people on the other hand...

If a worse case senario should happen, USA and the West will not have any "good relation" with some of the countries in that area.

Please do free to correct me if I'm wrong

Edit: Forgot something. I don't know if its the ordinary American they hate or if it is the US government and their politics they hate. If I recall my friends from down there, it's the government and the politics they have been using throughout the years.

Markus

Taking information from news outlets and a small group of people is not necessarily a good factor depending on what news outlets and people you use. It probably is the American government they dislike, and indeed some do hate it, but these people are hardly alone in the world, a good portion of American people hate the American government and a small portion would quite happily drop a plane on the White House if it meant getting rid of Obama. Genocide is not purely a Middle Eastern speciality.

Platapus is right, ISIS has no interest in attacking the US, for one thing they're preoccupied carving out their own part of the Middle East, and all that attacking the US mainland would do is galvanise the American people into directly acting against them. As Napoleon once said "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

[Armistead]

Taking information from news outlets and a small group of people is not necessarily a good factor depending on what news outlets and people you use. It probably is the American government they dislike, and indeed some do hate it, but these people are hardly alone in the world, a good portion of American people hate the American government and a small portion would quite happily drop a plane on the White House if it meant getting rid of Obama. Genocide is not purely a Middle Eastern speciality.

Platapus is right, ISIS has no interest in attacking the US, for one thing they're preoccupied carving out their own part of the Middle East, and all that attacking the US mainland would do is galvanise the American people into directly acting against them. As Napoleon once said "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

I think you're misjudging ISIS and any radical group like it. I agree, no intent now, but they certainly have intent to do so later. What to do for now, they're all really enemies, so let them fight each other. Sadly, all the 100's of billions spent there by the US, the 1000's lost.....really were wasted. Just shows how dumb the war was from the beginning.

[Dread Knot]

I think you're misjudging ISIS and any radical group like it. I agree, no intent now, but they certainly have intent to do so later. What to do for now, they're all really enemies, so let them fight each other. Sadly, all the 100's of billions spent there by the US, the 1000's lost.....really were wasted. Just shows how dumb the war was from the beginning.

If you want to know who the real losers in the long run will be, it's likely to be the Sunnis of Iraq themselves. There are Sunnis currently cheering ISIS on, but it's really short-sighted. The Sunnis will suffer more from this than anyone. The Kurds will benefit, Iran will benefit, and the Shia will suffer but not as much. Life is still going on in the Shia provinces. This crisis is not disrupting daily life in Karbala or Basra.

Look out for lots of eventual sectarian cleansing in Baghdad. Not that the insurgents will overturn Baghdad, but that the number of attacks in Baghdad will increase. At some point the Shia will simply clear Baghdad of it's remaining Sunnis and to the extent that their areas fall out of government control, they will just spiral into absolute, total socio-economic ruin. Like Gaza on a grand scale.

The ISIS leadership probably will do fine. If it all falls apart they'll just take the money and run and set up shop elsewhere.

[Oberon]

I think you're misjudging ISIS and any radical group like it. I agree, no intent now, but they certainly have intent to do so later. What to do for now, they're all really enemies, so let them fight each other. Sadly, all the 100's of billions spent there by the US, the 1000's lost.....really were wasted. Just shows how dumb the war was from the beginning.

Quite likely but this will be a decade or two down the line, by which time the US will likely be focusing more on the PRC which will either be in a position to start throwing its weight around in the Pacific or it will have collapsed under its own house of cards, either way it will be causing ripples on the western seaboard. Right now, ISIS is setting up shop, attracting customers, laying groundwork to create a state for itself, and attacking the US mainland would only serve to galvanise its enemies.
US bases around the Middle East and US embassies are fair game though, don't get me wrong, but the US mainland is a no-no for the moment.

[Wolferz]

Seriously, you do have to wonder if there is one person at the helm anymore. Or just monkeys banging on keyboards.
I don't know about monkeys but, the first dog is a likely suspect...

Seen here in a CIA disguise to protect his identity...

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/Wolferz_2007/49626302.jpg

But this should keep my master's oil profits up.

[mapuc]

Taking information from news outlets and a small group of people is not necessarily a good factor depending on what news outlets and people you use. It probably is the American government they dislike, and indeed some do hate it, but these people are hardly alone in the world, a good portion of American people hate the American government and a small portion would quite happily drop a plane on the White House if it meant getting rid of Obama. Genocide is not purely a Middle Eastern speciality.

Platapus is right, ISIS has no interest in attacking the US, for one thing they're preoccupied carving out their own part of the Middle East, and all that attacking the US mainland would do is galvanise the American people into directly acting against them. As Napoleon once said "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Maybe you are all right about ISIS and the development in Iraq and the middle east. I just remember what my former friend from Iran, Palestine and Iraq once told me when we were discussing USA and their politics in the that area.

Maybe you have access to some intelligence that I haven't I have only access to national news media and English news such as CNN and BBC World News.

Try to recall what one of my FB friends said on prime time news yesterday

It was a lot he told us, about the strength of ISIS about the defense of Baghdad and the Government and the ordinary people on the street in Baghdad and other cities around Baghdad.

From now on I will only read what you write in this thread 'cause I have absolutely no expertise in this.

Markus

[Oberon]

Hmmm, do I need a Neil De Grasse Tyson meme?

I never said that I'm an expert, I just get a little weary when people say things like:

how much a majority of the Muslim in the Muslims world hate USA

Now, I'm sure that, as I have already said, many do, especially those who have had bombs dropped on their neighbourhood or family and friends, but is this a majority? There are over one billion Muslims in the world, one seventh of the worlds population (Christianity, by the way, populates around 2 billion), now I think that if a majority of one billion people hated America then we'd have seen something a bit bigger than 9/11 take place in America by now.
Al'Qaeda, for example, has a hardcore group of around a thousand members, and a following in the hundreds of thousands. That's still not even one percent of the global Islamic population. ISIS is around thirty thousand fighters, according to the Daily Fail at least, and even if that's a low estimate, until they get into the hundreds of millions, they're not going to break 1% of the Muslim population.

Of course, it's the tiny percentage that gets all the headlines, like the Westboro Baptist Church for Christianity, but numerically speaking, it's definitely not a majority. :03:

[Armistead]

There will likely be no US ground troops sent. Iraq's Foreign Minister says no there one is yet calling for American troops in Iraq. And of all options currently on the table, it's the only one that the Obama administration has explicitly nixed.

You can send airstrikes, but it can be difficult to wipe out an insurgency from above, especially if militants blend into the civilian population. You are going to have ample PR opportunities for ISIS if airstrikes go awry and kill civilians. And if a pilot goes down, it's heavy ransom time.

You can send arms and money but the Iraqi Army is badly led, seems to suffer from poor morale and is not particularly competent. Already, militants have been able to pick up millions of dollars of US weaponry, vehicles and other goods on its swift sweep of northern Iraq. You might just be sending them more.

So maybe the best option is to send in the drones and play the endless game of whack-a-mole from the skies. But it seems like no matter now many you kill, there are always more.

I think whack-a-mole is the word for now.

[Oberon]

Been the word for over a decade I think. :hmmm:

[Armistead]

Not sure how a FB video I've seen will post here, but I'll try, since it's appearing a lot.... I assume it's older and not reflecting today, but some US soldier blasting Iraqi police force during training. Not sure if his tactics worked, but interesting him talking of them being cowards when the Sunnis come.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10202118059412308&set=vb.1212608587&type=2&theater

[Platapus]

I will not or are trying not to generalize, but after having talking to a few Muslim from that area and been watching the news from that area throughout the years I have come to that conclusion that a majority hate USA.


Thanks for making our point. :)

Yes you are generalizing. What you are doing is the definition of generalizing -- taking limited information about a subset of a population and applying it to the larger population.

There are over a billion Muslims in the world. To claim that the "majority hate the USA" will require more than talking to a few and watching the news media. :yep:

Consider this: Why would the news media report on Muslims that don't hate us? There is no revenue in those types of stories. The news media reports what they feel will lure readers/viewers in so they can make revenue. That is the unfortunate result of the for-profit news media we have today.

Long gone are the days where the news media accurately reports the news... perhaps they never did?

[Dread Knot]

Long gone are the days where the news media accurately reports the news... perhaps they never did?


Traditional newspaper headlines used to encapsulate the most important parts of a story in just a few words. You still see quite a few headlines like this.

But the disturbing trend, which appears even on web sites like that of the New York Times, is to resort to the "teaser" headlines. Teaser headlines don't encapsulate the story. They are designed simply to try to lure you to click the link to read the story (clicking, by which is the way some news sites make their money. Whether you read the story is immaterial).

Television used to be notorious for this sort of thing ("Something on your dinner table can KILL you, we'll have film at 11!"), but now some "respectable" print media may be moving in that direction. And that direction is downward.

[Armistead]

Thanks for making our point. :)


Long gone are the days where the news media accurately reports the news... perhaps they never did?

I think Jon Stewart does a good job with the news..

[Armistead]

I agree that most Muslims hate the USA, because our system is totally against what they want and what the Koran demands.. But to be honest, Christianity has basically the same beliefs.

All must accept or be doomed
All must follow a certain God
That the world must end is some apocalyptic fashion

[Tribesman]

I think most muslims want what most humans want.

[HunterICX]

I think most muslims want what most humans want.

Kebab?

[soopaman2]

Kebab?

Bacon.

The problem with Muslims is they never partook in bacon, if they did, then maybe they would not to use beheadings and civilian killing to make thier point.

All they want is the USA attention, so we come back, and they can dress up as civilians and go back to killing us with IEDs, and using the knowledge we will not bomb an entire town into rubble against us. Scaring the natives into not telling on them, as they kill us slowly.



How many more Americans have to visit gravestones before the savages become civilized?

[Oberon]

http://tacticalentertainment.tv/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/gwi1.jpg