Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 63dot, Nov 16, 2014.
You would've thought that word got around to stay the **** away from those desert dumps.
It's not an excuse for cutting people's heads off, if it did happen. I digress... These dumb ass missionaries go places and think god will save them if they screw up.
It doesn't work like that
So much for the religion of peace.
Most muslims around the world actively decry this sort of behavior - they see it as a corruption of their beliefs, just like most christians decry the actions of people who bomb abortion clinics or would decry the actions of people who stone people to death (that actually happens in the Bible).
These people are not exemplifying the muslim beliefs, they are perverting those beliefs. You cannot judge the whole religion based on the actions of a minority.
Many Christians secretly support the bombing of abortion clinics.
ISIS is probably following the closest path that their prophet would have prescribed, so I imagine many Islamic people secretly support their actions as well. They seem to be doing pretty well for recruitment for their jihad.
They are cutting off heads to send a message to President Obama that his bombing campaign isn't working. This isn't a guess. They've said it.
I don't beieve that the smart missionaries believe that.
Fundamentalism and Intollerance are the key words.
Do you believe that? What do you suggest?
Is this your opinion or do you have supporting data?
Yes, I believe that they are doing it because they are upset with our bombing their country. I think we'd be a bit miffed if they were doing it to us.
Personally, I wish that we'd have stayed the heck out of the problem. Remember this war was over. We left a stable government in place. This isn't our problem. When the US decides to commit to a situation we either need to pull all the stops out and go big or not go at all. Unfortunately, in this day and age, the political climate makes politicians afraid to do what needs to be done. They are afraid to crack the eggs but want the omelets. That just doesn't work.
These aren't just problems that President Obama's decisions have caused. We have a long history of getting involved in conflicts all over the world that we don't need to get into. Of course, during President Obama's time in office we've bombed seven countries.
What a bunch of PC crap.
I meant do you believe the the bombing campaign is not working because they say so?
I agree that the U.S. is way to involved in the Middle East. I hold Bush responsible for starting this affair. I believe Obama should have cut our losses, but instead we stayed until a "quote" stable government was established. This earned him the gratitude of Conservatives. So we have proven that country building has a high percentage failure rate. Just remember this when President Cruz wants to invade Iran.
Keep in mind that for every country Obama has bombed, he's been criticized for not doing more by the politicians you support.
It must be wonderful seeing the world in terms of black and white.
What kind of bait are your throwing out there? The bombing campaign is obviously not working because they not only continue to exist but are expanding. Anyone can say anything that they want. But ISIS/ISIL is pretty much proving that they are undeterred by the bombing.
Now, if on the other hand you have some evidence to look at that shows the bombing campaign is working, please bring out.
Ah yes, the blame Bush argument. But don't you remember President Obama said that we left a stable government behind and then he took a year long victory tour talking about how he ended the war in Iraq. So this is a new war. The Bush war was the old war.
Our country keeps half stepping. If we are going to make the decision to go in, then we need to go all in. Declare war and hit them with a force that they understand we mean business. Either go big or stay on the porch.
That's worked so well for us in the past.
Fighting ISIS wouldn't be like fighting Russia or China. It's a war with no fronts, fought against a nearly invisible, fluid enemy that can blend in with the local population. Sending in the full brunt of the US military to fight a war it's not well suited to handle would just be another Iraq. We'd make a big show at first, then spend the next few years watching our troops numbers slowly get whittled down without any clear victories to show for it.
Actually, it did. I refer you to August 6, 1945 and August 9, 1945. When the world realized the gloves were off and that the USA would do whatever needed to end the conflict, they took notice. For decades after those bombings countries have realized that attacking the USA is not a good idea.
Now, the USA wages war by trying to minimize the number of people injured with every bomb dropped. They don't try to win the wars, they try and contain the enemy rather than defeat them.
Yet, if the locals were more afraid of us than of them, they'd have no where to hide. We are half a world away and have made it clear that our support is very limited. ISIS/ISIL on the other hand is local. They are able to terrorize the locals so that they will give them protection and help hide their location.
Why not stay in Iraq alltogether? The americans stayed in germany for half a century. Why not make Iraq a colony? It's got sand and oil. Sorta like parts of Texas. Give the population burgers, kfc and fast internet. They already have a lot of guns, so no need to help them out with those. Send over some baptist missionarys and make christianity the official state religion.
Seriously, the people in Iraq have nothing to lose, might as well go all the way.
I'd like to see that study.
Here is a Pew Research study with statistics on Islam that are backed by actual data and they're alarming:
Why do Western liberals always feel the need to apologize for Islam?
You can't compare the Nazis to ISIS. They're entirely different circumstances. The Nazis fought a traditional war with fronts, areas of defense, supply lines, and all that good stuff. It's what our army is equipped and trained to handle. We'd do a good job of it.
ISIS is a guerrilla style army. They have no single base of operations, no uniforms to identify enemy from civilian, no areas of defense, and no clear point of attack. If we were to roll in, guns blazing, they'd scatter into the desert, and people like you would scream "look at them run". Then, while we're all comfy in our bases, congratulating ourselves for a job well done, they'll spend the next few years shooting at us, picking us off one by one, sabotaging our equipment, bombing our points of interest, goading us into attacking innocent civilians, driving our troops to the brink of madness, and overall making us look bad in front of the entire world.
I mean hell, it's not like you have to look back all that far for an example. It's exactly what happened in Iraq, and is still happening in Afghanistan. The exact same thing would happen here.
That's not to say our army sucks, and we're incapable of handling the situation. It's that you have to use the right tools to handle different situations. Bringing the full brunt of the US military against an enemy like ISIS would only be a waste of lives and money, and end up getting us nowhere.
You want some historical proof? Look to the Soviets. How did Afghanistan turn out for them?
Has that ever worked?
If the locals were more afraid of us than them, you only end up making ISIS look good in comparison. And then guess what'll happen? Vietnam 2, where your enemy is the local population.
The government of Iraq made it clear that they didn't want us to stay. President Obama extended the offer, they declined it. Then when they got into trouble, we were the first phone call. To make it worse, we rode in to their rescue with a bombing campaign.
I'm sorry, after they decided that they didn't need us and wanted us to leave, it became their problem. We should have reminded them of their earlier decision and politely declined to get involved.
Ever consdidered that the whole ISIS story might be an excuse to go back in?
I'm not buying that one. The President has intelligence resources at his command, that can certainly determine if ISIS/ISIL is real. Of course, he thought they were the JV team but I don't think that President Obama is going to be fooled by a former CIA contractor.
That sounds very hypocritical, pre 2003 the government of Iraq never invited the US to invade. So why do you listen now, and not then.
Or is it that the US only follows its on agenda, and **** everybody else.
Who says he is fooled? He is likely in on it. False flag operations are the most common thing. ISIS showed up out of nowhere, is lavishly funded, well organized and the whole terrorism thing has had a false flag smell from the start.
I was against the war under Bush and I'm against the war now. The Iraqis were offered the opportunity for us to stay. They made it clear that they wanted us gone. Now that someone they fear more has invaded them, they suddenly want our help again. I'm sorry, they had that opportunity and turned it down. Not our problem.
You know that's not an option.
US cannot just walk away, it's got to much to lose in the world, if you walk away nobody would ever trust you again.
It's like a gambler you washes his debts.