But it's a good point. I don't actually find it funny. This whole issue is absolutely 100% infuriating to me.
Agree with the infuriating as well though for it is a world war and people refuse to recognize...it has been for years. An enemy has engaged globally but we have yet decided to fully label the enemy or respond appropriately. Gunmen have just taken 170 hostages in Mali, American teenager killed in Israel yesterday along with four others, all this on top of the countless number of attacks that began on a regular basis since before this message board even existed. It is time for people on here to wake up to this fact. Until then it is impossible to even discuss solutions.
Although the Mali attack appears to be Al-Qaeda, not ISIS.
It's the ideology and not the group we're at war with.
Exactly, and you can't win a war with ideology with guns and bombs.
Yes you can
Didn't work too well in Afghanistan. Or Vietnam.
Yet it worked extremely well in Germany and Japan so go figure. It is about a commitment to winning and staying to secure the peace. Peace was secured in Iraq but then came withdrawal. If troops stayed ISIS would be on the ropes. This is dubbed the long war for a reason. A commitment to stay is necessary.
this war is not against a specific country. it goes beyond borders. how do you win a war like that?
It is only won when moderates are able to live free from fear. Again the majority of muslims don't embrace the radical ideology but are deathly afraid of their violence. They cower in the face of that violence which then allows for the radical ideology to grow. Once given security from that evil moderates will join up to defeat it. Moderation will then spread from the inside out as recruitment dries up. The essential factor though is security.
Sounds a lot like Bush and Cheney, and that worked great.
It did work great. The Obama administration called Iraq one of America's greatest success stories...and then they withdrew. Staying would have prevented the collapse, the rise of ISIS in syria and the refugee crisis that followed.
But it's a good point. I don't actually find it funny. This whole issue is absolutely 100% infuriating to me.
Agree with the infuriating as well though for it is a world war and people refuse to recognize...it has been for years. An enemy has engaged globally but we have yet decided to fully label the enemy or respond appropriately. Gunmen have just taken 170 hostages in Mali, American teenager killed in Israel yesterday along with four others, all this on top of the countless number of attacks that began on a regular basis since before this message board even existed. It is time for people on here to wake up to this fact. Until then it is impossible to even discuss solutions.
Although the Mali attack appears to be Al-Qaeda, not ISIS.
It's the ideology and not the group we're at war with.
Exactly, and you can't win a war with ideology with guns and bombs.
Yes you can
Didn't work too well in Afghanistan. Or Vietnam.
Yet it worked extremely well in Germany and Japan so go figure. It is about a commitment to winning and staying to secure the peace. Peace was secured in Iraq but then came withdrawal. If troops stayed ISIS would be on the ropes. This is dubbed the long war for a reason. A commitment to stay is necessary.
So you would be ok for troops to be there for like the next what 50 yrs cause maybe by then you would change their ideology ....
All seem to revolve around fear and lack of knowledge about the process in place, where these would new americans or canadians are actually housed currently, that most of the isis affliated attacks abroad were by nationals of those countries or within EU boundries where freedom of movement across borders is accepted.
Last that France is accepting 25000 in the face of these attacks.
Fear stoked by selfserving assholes in gov and media.
Probably some fear and lack of knowledge but more along the lines of trying to prevent another attack. I don't see what is wrong with this. Why would you want the enemy to come into your country?
Who is suggesting that the enemy come to your country?? Your enemy is also the enemy of the refugees. They are fleeing your enemy. You know that.
two of the paris attackers blended in with the refugees. who says they can't do the same thing when they come here or canada?
The way in which they are being selected and processed says so. You know that people are just swimming ashore in Greece, right??? There are actually much easier ways for terrorists to enter Canada or the US than to submit themselves to 2 or 3 years in a refugee camp in Turkey and then to a rigorous application and screening process with the government. To think terrorists would do all that instead of taking all kinds of easier routes is laughable. Where were you before Paris happened?? Because whatever threat you're afraid of of now was just as present before the Paris bombing. Probably even more so, now that security is beefed up again. Your paranoia is illogical, no offense. Even if one single refugee who entered committed a terrorist act (which has NEVER happened in the US before, btw, and the US has allowed many, many refugees in), so? You think they or someone else wouldn't have found another way to do it? Not allowing refugees in only hurts people, and protects no one.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
But it's a good point. I don't actually find it funny. This whole issue is absolutely 100% infuriating to me.
Agree with the infuriating as well though for it is a world war and people refuse to recognize...it has been for years. An enemy has engaged globally but we have yet decided to fully label the enemy or respond appropriately. Gunmen have just taken 170 hostages in Mali, American teenager killed in Israel yesterday along with four others, all this on top of the countless number of attacks that began on a regular basis since before this message board even existed. It is time for people on here to wake up to this fact. Until then it is impossible to even discuss solutions.
Although the Mali attack appears to be Al-Qaeda, not ISIS.
It's the ideology and not the group we're at war with.
Exactly, and you can't win a war with ideology with guns and bombs.
Yes you can
Didn't work too well in Afghanistan. Or Vietnam.
Yet it worked extremely well in Germany and Japan so go figure. It is about a commitment to winning and staying to secure the peace. Peace was secured in Iraq but then came withdrawal. If troops stayed ISIS would be on the ropes. This is dubbed the long war for a reason. A commitment to stay is necessary.
Peace was never secured in Iraq. Saddam lost but peace was never gained. I would even argue that there became less peace in the country with the fall of Saddam.
There was less peace after the fall of Saddam as the post-invasion chaos was completely underestimated and mishandled. There was then a restoration of peace following the surge. This peace was not secured however. You are correct about that...a secured peace requires a long term presence just like Germany and/or Japan.
The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.
The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.
I agree in theory. I'm not sure about the ass kicking part though. I want ISIS's ass kicked obviously. Of course. Bunch if motherfuckers.... I'm just not convinced that waging the same kind of war that keeps failing is the way to do that. In fact, I suspect it will just make things worse (again). I don't know if there is any way to do it at all in terms of military action. Seems more like a massive social problem to me. Plus prevention, which is especially tough when we value freedom.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
All seem to revolve around fear and lack of knowledge about the process in place, where these would new americans or canadians are actually housed currently, that most of the isis affliated attacks abroad were by nationals of those countries or within EU boundries where freedom of movement across borders is accepted.
Last that France is accepting 25000 in the face of these attacks.
Fear stoked by selfserving assholes in gov and media.
Probably some fear and lack of knowledge but more along the lines of trying to prevent another attack. I don't see what is wrong with this. Why would you want the enemy to come into your country?
Who is suggesting that the enemy come to your country?? Your enemy is also the enemy of the refugees. They are fleeing your enemy. You know that.
two of the paris attackers blended in with the refugees. who says they can't do the same thing when they come here or canada?
The way in which they are being selected and processed says so. You know that people are just swimming ashore in Greece, right??? There are actually much easier ways for terrorists to enter Canada or the US than to submit themselves to 2 or 3 years in a refugee camp in Turkey and then to a rigorous application and screening process with the government. To think terrorists would do all that instead of taking all kinds of easier routes is laughable. Where were you before Paris happened?? Because whatever threat you're afraid of of now was just as present before the Paris bombing. Probably even more so, now that security is beefed up again. Your paranoia is illogical, no offense. Even if one single refugee who entered committed a terrorist act (which has NEVER happened in the US before, btw, and the US has allowed many, many refugees in), so? You think they or someone else wouldn't have found another way to do it? Not allowing refugees in only hurts people, and protects no one.
This whole refugee argument is really just a way for people to absolve themselves of the guilt they feel for encouraging a withdrawal.
Has anyone on here really asked themselves how come there was no massive refugee crisis during the lead up to the Iraq war or even during the Iraq war? Why didn't thousands flee during the brutal American Occupation? Certainly there were some refugees but the "crisis" only began post American withdrawal from Iraq and after the fall of Gadafi in Libya. I'm sorry but this crisis is a direct result of Obama foreign policy and the people who supported it must know deep down that this is on them. Again I'm all for accepting displaced people but it would be nice to hear the people screaming the loudest to accept some responsibility for why they are refugees in the first place.
The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.
I agree in theory. I'm not sure about the ass kicking part though. I want ISIS's ass kicked obviously. Of course. Bunch if motherfuckers.... I'm just not convinced that waging the same kind of war that keeps failing is the way to do that. In fact, I suspect it will just make things worse (again). I don't know if there is any way to do it at all in terms of military action. Seems more like a massive social problem to me. Plus prevention, which is especially tough when we value freedom.
It doesn't keep failing. It is just not the same as getting fast food. The problem with society today is we expect instant results. We want "peace" as fast as it takes to load this webpage. Change takes time. Security takes time. Osama bin laden called this the 100 Year War. Those who share his ideology understand this and we need to understand it as well.
I don't feel any guilt. My country wasn't even in the Iraq war. I actually don't give a shit why there are refugees at the moment, since that doesn't change the present. The important thing to me when it comes to them is that they need help right now. FWIW, I think you are wrong about that being why Americans want to help them. What an incredibly cynical idea that is. Who came up with that?? Even if it were true... what responsibility do you think random Americans who want to refugees are supposed to take?? Exactly what role do you think they played so that they should feel guilty and then accept responsibility for what Bush and Cheney started?? I find it odd that you blame the withdrawal rather than the war.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't feel any guilt. My country wasn't even in the Iraq war. I actually don't give a shit why there are refugees at the moment, since that doesn't change the present. The important thing to me when it comes to them is that they need help right now. FWIW, I think you are wrong about that being why Americans want to help them. What an incredibly cynical idea that is. Who came up with that??
I didn't say that's why ALL Americans want to help them...but certainly some. President Obama probably feels the most guilty and that's why he's speaking so strongly about refugees. He withdrew, made his "red line" comment, did nothing about Assad's genocide, allowed ISIS to grow....refugee crisis was his making and Hillary was right there with him.
The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.
I agree in theory. I'm not sure about the ass kicking part though. I want ISIS's ass kicked obviously. Of course. Bunch if motherfuckers.... I'm just not convinced that waging the same kind of war that keeps failing is the way to do that. In fact, I suspect it will just make things worse (again). I don't know if there is any way to do it at all in terms of military action. Seems more like a massive social problem to me. Plus prevention, which is especially tough when we value freedom.
It doesn't keep failing. It is just not the same as getting fast food. The problem with society today is we expect instant results. We want "peace" as fast as it takes to load this webpage. Change takes time. Security takes time. Osama bin laden called this the 100 Year War. Those who share his ideology understand this and we need to understand it as well.
So you are advocating a perpetual, indefinite state of war and occupation. Mmmmkaaayy. Can't really say anything if that is where your head is.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't feel any guilt. My country wasn't even in the Iraq war. I actually don't give a shit why there are refugees at the moment, since that doesn't change the present. The important thing to me when it comes to them is that they need help right now. FWIW, I think you are wrong about that being why Americans want to help them. What an incredibly cynical idea that is. Who came up with that??
I didn't say that's why ALL Americans want to help them...but certainly some. President Obama probably feels the most guilty and that's why he's speaking so strongly about refugees. He withdrew, made his "red line" comment, did nothing about Assad's genocide, allowed ISIS to grow....refugee crisis was his making and Hillary was right there with him.
I think that's insane, lol. I can't really get my head around how many responsible parties you are ignoring while focusing in on Obama and Clinton.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.
I agree in theory. I'm not sure about the ass kicking part though. I want ISIS's ass kicked obviously. Of course. Bunch if motherfuckers.... I'm just not convinced that waging the same kind of war that keeps failing is the way to do that. In fact, I suspect it will just make things worse (again). I don't know if there is any way to do it at all in terms of military action. Seems more like a massive social problem to me. Plus prevention, which is especially tough when we value freedom.
It doesn't keep failing. It is just not the same as getting fast food. The problem with society today is we expect instant results. We want "peace" as fast as it takes to load this webpage. Change takes time. Security takes time. Osama bin laden called this the 100 Year War. Those who share his ideology understand this and we need to understand it as well.
So you are advocating a perpetual, indefinite state of war and occupation. Mmmmkaaayy. Can't really say anything if that is where your head is.
I'm advocating securing peace for a region so that we don't have a million more refugees. I prefer that over the horrific status quo.
I don't feel any guilt. My country wasn't even in the Iraq war. I actually don't give a shit why there are refugees at the moment, since that doesn't change the present. The important thing to me when it comes to them is that they need help right now. FWIW, I think you are wrong about that being why Americans want to help them. What an incredibly cynical idea that is. Who came up with that??
I didn't say that's why ALL Americans want to help them...but certainly some. President Obama probably feels the most guilty and that's why he's speaking so strongly about refugees. He withdrew, made his "red line" comment, did nothing about Assad's genocide, allowed ISIS to grow....refugee crisis was his making and Hillary was right there with him.
I think that's insane, lol. I can't really get my head around how many responsible parties you are ignoring while focusing in on Obama and Clinton.
Other then Assad I'm not sure who else you would like me to include? The refugee crisis was predicted in the run up to the 2008 election. The last 7 years have turned out exactly as a lot of people said it would.
Once again BS is full of BS and rewriting history for a singular selfish goal. Hey BS, let me know when Canada wants to commit 130,000+ troops, take in a few thousand refugees and ride it out for 50 to 200 years. Let me know when your country has some skin in the game. Oh what's that? You spend less than 1% of GDP on defense? Would you like to argue the SFA and national sovereignty again or are you going to link to the prestigious Prager University for a defense of your war mongering? Again?
Let me know when you move to Israel. I might, might, have more respect for you. Yea, go over and, "set the Middle East right."
The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.
I agree in theory. I'm not sure about the ass kicking part though. I want ISIS's ass kicked obviously. Of course. Bunch if motherfuckers.... I'm just not convinced that waging the same kind of war that keeps failing is the way to do that. In fact, I suspect it will just make things worse (again). I don't know if there is any way to do it at all in terms of military action. Seems more like a massive social problem to me. Plus prevention, which is especially tough when we value freedom.
It doesn't keep failing. It is just not the same as getting fast food. The problem with society today is we expect instant results. We want "peace" as fast as it takes to load this webpage. Change takes time. Security takes time. Osama bin laden called this the 100 Year War. Those who share his ideology understand this and we need to understand it as well.
So you are advocating a perpetual, indefinite state of war and occupation. Mmmmkaaayy. Can't really say anything if that is where your head is.
Do you think it will be possible for Syria to become a safe country without Western involvement? Unfortunately the West is going to need to come in, secure the region for 100 years while these punk-ass bitches die off, and reasonable Muslims can then have their land back when they have demonstrated for a few decades that they won't blow each other up. An old fashioned 'timeout' from the parents.
Once again BS is full of BS and rewriting history for a singular selfish goal. Hey BS, let me know when Canada wants to commit 130,000+ troops, take in a few thousand refugees and ride it out for 50 to 200 years. Let me know when your country has some skin in the game. Oh what's that? You spend less than 1% of GDP on defense? Would you like to argue the SFA and national sovereignty again or are you going to link to the prestigious Prager University for a defense of your war mongering? Again?
Let me know when you move to Israel. I might, might, have more respect for you. Yea, go over and, "set the Middle East right."
The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.
I agree in theory. I'm not sure about the ass kicking part though. I want ISIS's ass kicked obviously. Of course. Bunch if motherfuckers.... I'm just not convinced that waging the same kind of war that keeps failing is the way to do that. In fact, I suspect it will just make things worse (again). I don't know if there is any way to do it at all in terms of military action. Seems more like a massive social problem to me. Plus prevention, which is especially tough when we value freedom.
It doesn't keep failing. It is just not the same as getting fast food. The problem with society today is we expect instant results. We want "peace" as fast as it takes to load this webpage. Change takes time. Security takes time. Osama bin laden called this the 100 Year War. Those who share his ideology understand this and we need to understand it as well.
So you are advocating a perpetual, indefinite state of war and occupation. Mmmmkaaayy. Can't really say anything if that is where your head is.
Do you think it will be possible for Syria to become a safe country without Western involvement? Unfortunately the West is going to need to come in, secure the region for 100 years while these punk-ass bitches die off, and reasonable Muslims can then have their land back when they have demonstrated for a few decades that they won't blow each other up. An old fashioned 'timeout' from the parents.
Reasonable Muslims can have their land (their homelamd, their independent nations) back when they promise to do what they're told by Father Knows West? Oh gee, how generous. Can they also get some chocolate ice cream if they eat up all their spinach? The US just might get itself nuked if it does what you guys are talking about. The people in the middle east aren't fucking going to stand for that shit. You are talking about World War III. I don't see that as a good solution at all. It is the kind of xenophobic thinking that ISIS depends on to keep growing.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.
I agree in theory. I'm not sure about the ass kicking part though. I want ISIS's ass kicked obviously. Of course. Bunch if motherfuckers.... I'm just not convinced that waging the same kind of war that keeps failing is the way to do that. In fact, I suspect it will just make things worse (again). I don't know if there is any way to do it at all in terms of military action. Seems more like a massive social problem to me. Plus prevention, which is especially tough when we value freedom.
It doesn't keep failing. It is just not the same as getting fast food. The problem with society today is we expect instant results. We want "peace" as fast as it takes to load this webpage. Change takes time. Security takes time. Osama bin laden called this the 100 Year War. Those who share his ideology understand this and we need to understand it as well.
So you are advocating a perpetual, indefinite state of war and occupation. Mmmmkaaayy. Can't really say anything if that is where your head is.
Do you think it will be possible for Syria to become a safe country without Western involvement? Unfortunately the West is going to need to come in, secure the region for 100 years while these punk-ass bitches die off, and reasonable Muslims can then have their land back when they have demonstrated for a few decades that they won't blow each other up. An old fashioned 'timeout' from the parents.
The US just might get itself nuked if it does that. The people in the middle east aren't fucking going to stand for that. You are talking about World War III. I don't see that as a good solution at all.
The area needs a security force. They need for kids to go to school in safety and grow up and learn a trade or skill. Who the hell knows but they can't fix themselves. It isn't going to happen. They are 500 years behind the west.
The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.
I agree in theory. I'm not sure about the ass kicking part though. I want ISIS's ass kicked obviously. Of course. Bunch if motherfuckers.... I'm just not convinced that waging the same kind of war that keeps failing is the way to do that. In fact, I suspect it will just make things worse (again). I don't know if there is any way to do it at all in terms of military action. Seems more like a massive social problem to me. Plus prevention, which is especially tough when we value freedom.
It doesn't keep failing. It is just not the same as getting fast food. The problem with society today is we expect instant results. We want "peace" as fast as it takes to load this webpage. Change takes time. Security takes time. Osama bin laden called this the 100 Year War. Those who share his ideology understand this and we need to understand it as well.
So you are advocating a perpetual, indefinite state of war and occupation. Mmmmkaaayy. Can't really say anything if that is where your head is.
Do you think it will be possible for Syria to become a safe country without Western involvement? Unfortunately the West is going to need to come in, secure the region for 100 years while these punk-ass bitches die off, and reasonable Muslims can then have their land back when they have demonstrated for a few decades that they won't blow each other up. An old fashioned 'timeout' from the parents.
The US just might get itself nuked if it does that. The people in the middle east aren't fucking going to stand for that. You are talking about World War III. I don't see that as a good solution at all.
The area needs a security force. They need for kids to go to school in safety and grow up and learn a trade or skill. Who the hell knows but they can't fix themselves. It isn't going to happen. They are 500 years behind the west.
Have a war like what you're talking about and there won't be schools for any kids to go to anywhere in the Middle East. When did it become America's job to dictate how other countries develop?? Again, it is EXACTLY this kind of thinking that grows ISIS. Do you even know what the lives of Syrians were like before ISIS came and killed them and drove them out?? They actually weren't living in mud huts and puzzling over whether or not the earth revolves around the sun. Have you forgotten that a terrorist group is the enemy, and not Middle Eastern culture?? I mean what the fuck?! I can't believe there are still people who think you can force a way of life or culture upon another. Newsflash - that doesn't work!
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.
I agree in theory. I'm not sure about the ass kicking part though. I want ISIS's ass kicked obviously. Of course. Bunch if motherfuckers.... I'm just not convinced that waging the same kind of war that keeps failing is the way to do that. In fact, I suspect it will just make things worse (again). I don't know if there is any way to do it at all in terms of military action. Seems more like a massive social problem to me. Plus prevention, which is especially tough when we value freedom.
It doesn't keep failing. It is just not the same as getting fast food. The problem with society today is we expect instant results. We want "peace" as fast as it takes to load this webpage. Change takes time. Security takes time. Osama bin laden called this the 100 Year War. Those who share his ideology understand this and we need to understand it as well.
So you are advocating a perpetual, indefinite state of war and occupation. Mmmmkaaayy. Can't really say anything if that is where your head is.
Do you think it will be possible for Syria to become a safe country without Western involvement? Unfortunately the West is going to need to come in, secure the region for 100 years while these punk-ass bitches die off, and reasonable Muslims can then have their land back when they have demonstrated for a few decades that they won't blow each other up. An old fashioned 'timeout' from the parents.
Reasonable Muslims can have their land (their homelamd, their independent nations) back when they promise to do what they're told by Father Knows West? Oh gee, how generous. Can they also get some chocolate ice cream if they eat up all their spinach? The US just might get itself nuked if it does what you guys are talking about. The people in the middle east aren't fucking going to stand for that shit. You are talking about World War III. I don't see that as a good solution at all. It is the kind of xenophobic thinking that ISIS depends on to keep growing.
That is an incorrect understanding of how ISIS keeps growing. It grows because it proselytizes about what is "Allah's will" and it uses its victories as evidence that they and their followers are on the right path. Victories over the west results in recruitment. As bin laden said people will tend to follow the "strong horse". When ISIS is handed losses through direct engagement numbers dry up...the surge and the anbar awakening proved this point.
The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.
I agree in theory. I'm not sure about the ass kicking part though. I want ISIS's ass kicked obviously. Of course. Bunch if motherfuckers.... I'm just not convinced that waging the same kind of war that keeps failing is the way to do that. In fact, I suspect it will just make things worse (again). I don't know if there is any way to do it at all in terms of military action. Seems more like a massive social problem to me. Plus prevention, which is especially tough when we value freedom.
It doesn't keep failing. It is just not the same as getting fast food. The problem with society today is we expect instant results. We want "peace" as fast as it takes to load this webpage. Change takes time. Security takes time. Osama bin laden called this the 100 Year War. Those who share his ideology understand this and we need to understand it as well.
So you are advocating a perpetual, indefinite state of war and occupation. Mmmmkaaayy. Can't really say anything if that is where your head is.
Do you think it will be possible for Syria to become a safe country without Western involvement? Unfortunately the West is going to need to come in, secure the region for 100 years while these punk-ass bitches die off, and reasonable Muslims can then have their land back when they have demonstrated for a few decades that they won't blow each other up. An old fashioned 'timeout' from the parents.
Reasonable Muslims can have their land (their homelamd, their independent nations) back when they promise to do what they're told by Father Knows West? Oh gee, how generous. Can they also get some chocolate ice cream if they eat up all their spinach? The US just might get itself nuked if it does what you guys are talking about. The people in the middle east aren't fucking going to stand for that shit. You are talking about World War III. I don't see that as a good solution at all. It is the kind of xenophobic thinking that ISIS depends on to keep growing.
That is an incorrect understanding of how ISIS keeps growing. It grows because it proselytizes about what is "Allah's will" and it uses its victories as evidence that they and their followers are on the right path. Victories over the west results in recruitment. As bin laden said people will tend to follow the "strong horse". When ISIS is handed losses through direct engagement numbers dry up...the surge and the anbar awakening proved this point.
But dude, ISIS isn't going to dry up if the US swoops in and starts another disastrous war like that. They will spread out even more, building independent cells, and attracting alienated Muslim youth (and Muslim converts) from all over the world. It's pretty fucking easy to have "victories" over the west when a victory is a handful of homegrown guys strapping on homemade bombs and walking into some Starbucks during the morning rush.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.
I agree in theory. I'm not sure about the ass kicking part though. I want ISIS's ass kicked obviously. Of course. Bunch if motherfuckers.... I'm just not convinced that waging the same kind of war that keeps failing is the way to do that. In fact, I suspect it will just make things worse (again). I don't know if there is any way to do it at all in terms of military action. Seems more like a massive social problem to me. Plus prevention, which is especially tough when we value freedom.
It doesn't keep failing. It is just not the same as getting fast food. The problem with society today is we expect instant results. We want "peace" as fast as it takes to load this webpage. Change takes time. Security takes time. Osama bin laden called this the 100 Year War. Those who share his ideology understand this and we need to understand it as well.
So you are advocating a perpetual, indefinite state of war and occupation. Mmmmkaaayy. Can't really say anything if that is where your head is.
Do you think it will be possible for Syria to become a safe country without Western involvement? Unfortunately the West is going to need to come in, secure the region for 100 years while these punk-ass bitches die off, and reasonable Muslims can then have their land back when they have demonstrated for a few decades that they won't blow each other up. An old fashioned 'timeout' from the parents.
Reasonable Muslims can have their land (their homelamd, their independent nations) back when they promise to do what they're told by Father Knows West? Oh gee, how generous. Can they also get some chocolate ice cream if they eat up all their spinach? The US just might get itself nuked if it does what you guys are talking about. The people in the middle east aren't fucking going to stand for that shit. You are talking about World War III. I don't see that as a good solution at all. It is the kind of xenophobic thinking that ISIS depends on to keep growing.
That is an incorrect understanding of how ISIS keeps growing. It grows because it proselytizes about what is "Allah's will" and it uses its victories as evidence that they and their followers are on the right path. Victories over the west results in recruitment. As bin laden said people will tend to follow the "strong horse". When ISIS is handed losses through direct engagement numbers dry up...the surge and the anbar awakening proved this point.
But dude, ISIS isn't going to dry up if the US swoops in and starts another disastrous war like that. They will spread out even more, building independent cells, and attracting alienated Muslim youth (and Muslim converts) from all over the world. It's pretty fucking easy to have "victories" over the west when a victory is a handful of homegrown guys strapping on homemade bombs and walking into some Starbucks during the morning rush.
You know your comment can probably be used as concern for taking in refugees into other countries, especially Western, right??
The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.
I agree in theory. I'm not sure about the ass kicking part though. I want ISIS's ass kicked obviously. Of course. Bunch if motherfuckers.... I'm just not convinced that waging the same kind of war that keeps failing is the way to do that. In fact, I suspect it will just make things worse (again). I don't know if there is any way to do it at all in terms of military action. Seems more like a massive social problem to me. Plus prevention, which is especially tough when we value freedom.
It doesn't keep failing. It is just not the same as getting fast food. The problem with society today is we expect instant results. We want "peace" as fast as it takes to load this webpage. Change takes time. Security takes time. Osama bin laden called this the 100 Year War. Those who share his ideology understand this and we need to understand it as well.
So you are advocating a perpetual, indefinite state of war and occupation. Mmmmkaaayy. Can't really say anything if that is where your head is.
Do you think it will be possible for Syria to become a safe country without Western involvement? Unfortunately the West is going to need to come in, secure the region for 100 years while these punk-ass bitches die off, and reasonable Muslims can then have their land back when they have demonstrated for a few decades that they won't blow each other up. An old fashioned 'timeout' from the parents.
Reasonable Muslims can have their land (their homelamd, their independent nations) back when they promise to do what they're told by Father Knows West? Oh gee, how generous. Can they also get some chocolate ice cream if they eat up all their spinach? The US just might get itself nuked if it does what you guys are talking about. The people in the middle east aren't fucking going to stand for that shit. You are talking about World War III. I don't see that as a good solution at all. It is the kind of xenophobic thinking that ISIS depends on to keep growing.
That is an incorrect understanding of how ISIS keeps growing. It grows because it proselytizes about what is "Allah's will" and it uses its victories as evidence that they and their followers are on the right path. Victories over the west results in recruitment. As bin laden said people will tend to follow the "strong horse". When ISIS is handed losses through direct engagement numbers dry up...the surge and the anbar awakening proved this point.
But dude, ISIS isn't going to dry up if the US swoops in and starts another disastrous war like that. They will spread out even more, building independent cells, and attracting alienated Muslim youth (and Muslim converts) from all over the world. It's pretty fucking easy to have "victories" over the west when a victory is a handful of homegrown guys strapping on homemade bombs and walking into some Starbucks during the morning rush.
You know your comment can probably be used as concern for taking in refugees into other countries, especially Western, right??
Not if your informed and have a basic understanding of how the refugee process works.
The correct policy is to take in refugees over here AND kick Islamist ass over there with a long term presence. Doing both is how you win...generosity and might.
I agree in theory. I'm not sure about the ass kicking part though. I want ISIS's ass kicked obviously. Of course. Bunch if motherfuckers.... I'm just not convinced that waging the same kind of war that keeps failing is the way to do that. In fact, I suspect it will just make things worse (again). I don't know if there is any way to do it at all in terms of military action. Seems more like a massive social problem to me. Plus prevention, which is especially tough when we value freedom.
It doesn't keep failing. It is just not the same as getting fast food. The problem with society today is we expect instant results. We want "peace" as fast as it takes to load this webpage. Change takes time. Security takes time. Osama bin laden called this the 100 Year War. Those who share his ideology understand this and we need to understand it as well.
So you are advocating a perpetual, indefinite state of war and occupation. Mmmmkaaayy. Can't really say anything if that is where your head is.
Do you think it will be possible for Syria to become a safe country without Western involvement? Unfortunately the West is going to need to come in, secure the region for 100 years while these punk-ass bitches die off, and reasonable Muslims can then have their land back when they have demonstrated for a few decades that they won't blow each other up. An old fashioned 'timeout' from the parents.
Reasonable Muslims can have their land (their homelamd, their independent nations) back when they promise to do what they're told by Father Knows West? Oh gee, how generous. Can they also get some chocolate ice cream if they eat up all their spinach? The US just might get itself nuked if it does what you guys are talking about. The people in the middle east aren't fucking going to stand for that shit. You are talking about World War III. I don't see that as a good solution at all. It is the kind of xenophobic thinking that ISIS depends on to keep growing.
That is an incorrect understanding of how ISIS keeps growing. It grows because it proselytizes about what is "Allah's will" and it uses its victories as evidence that they and their followers are on the right path. Victories over the west results in recruitment. As bin laden said people will tend to follow the "strong horse". When ISIS is handed losses through direct engagement numbers dry up...the surge and the anbar awakening proved this point.
But dude, ISIS isn't going to dry up if the US swoops in and starts another disastrous war like that. They will spread out even more, building independent cells, and attracting alienated Muslim youth (and Muslim converts) from all over the world. It's pretty fucking easy to have "victories" over the west when a victory is a handful of homegrown guys strapping on homemade bombs and walking into some Starbucks during the morning rush.
You know your comment can probably be used as concern for taking in refugees into other countries, especially Western, right??
Not if your informed and have a basic understanding of how the refugee process works.
Exactly. And also, I said homegrown. That specifically means not refugees by definition. So I suppose it could be used as concern if the person in question is refusing to use basic reasoning skills.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Once again BS is full of BS and rewriting history for a singular selfish goal. Hey BS, let me know when Canada wants to commit 130,000+ troops, take in a few thousand refugees and ride it out for 50 to 200 years. Let me know when your country has some skin in the game. Oh what's that? You spend less than 1% of GDP on defense? Would you like to argue the SFA and national sovereignty again or are you going to link to the prestigious Prager University for a defense of your war mongering? Again?
Let me know when you move to Israel. I might, might, have more respect for you. Yea, go over and, "set the Middle East right."
Ha.
I'd have more respect for you if you had said, "ha, ha, ha."
Comments
There are actually much easier ways for terrorists to enter Canada or the US than to submit themselves to 2 or 3 years in a refugee camp in Turkey and then to a rigorous application and screening process with the government. To think terrorists would do all that instead of taking all kinds of easier routes is laughable. Where were you before Paris happened?? Because whatever threat you're afraid of of now was just as present before the Paris bombing. Probably even more so, now that security is beefed up again.
Your paranoia is illogical, no offense. Even if one single refugee who entered committed a terrorist act (which has NEVER happened in the US before, btw, and the US has allowed many, many refugees in), so? You think they or someone else wouldn't have found another way to do it? Not allowing refugees in only hurts people, and protects no one.
Has anyone on here really asked themselves how come there was no massive refugee crisis during the lead up to the Iraq war or even during the Iraq war? Why didn't thousands flee during the brutal American Occupation? Certainly there were some refugees but the "crisis" only began post American withdrawal from Iraq and after the fall of Gadafi in Libya. I'm sorry but this crisis is a direct result of Obama foreign policy and the people who supported it must know deep down that this is on them. Again I'm all for accepting displaced people but it would be nice to hear the people screaming the loudest to accept some responsibility for why they are refugees in the first place.
FWIW, I think you are wrong about that being why Americans want to help them. What an incredibly cynical idea that is. Who came up with that?? Even if it were true... what responsibility do you think random Americans who want to refugees are supposed to take?? Exactly what role do you think they played so that they should feel guilty and then accept responsibility for what Bush and Cheney started?? I find it odd that you blame the withdrawal rather than the war.
Let me know when you move to Israel. I might, might, have more respect for you. Yea, go over and, "set the Middle East right."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The US just might get itself nuked if it does what you guys are talking about. The people in the middle east aren't fucking going to stand for that shit. You are talking about World War III. I don't see that as a good solution at all. It is the kind of xenophobic thinking that ISIS depends on to keep growing.
When did it become America's job to dictate how other countries develop?? Again, it is EXACTLY this kind of thinking that grows ISIS.
Do you even know what the lives of Syrians were like before ISIS came and killed them and drove them out?? They actually weren't living in mud huts and puzzling over whether or not the earth revolves around the sun. Have you forgotten that a terrorist group is the enemy, and not Middle Eastern culture?? I mean what the fuck?!
I can't believe there are still people who think you can force a way of life or culture upon another. Newsflash - that doesn't work!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Cucumbers, not bombs!
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/564f8531e4b0879a5b0b0aab?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063
(Btw, my auto correct changed "bombs" to "books". That made me smile.)
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Yes, we must work on this one!
Everybody now...
Cucumbers, not bombs!
Cucumbers, not bombs!
Cucumbers, not bombs!
Good one, Ident!