Religion of Peace

[nate]

The problem with your post is they overwhelmingly kill Muslim people and not non-Muslims.

The second problem is that you think getting rid of ISIS accomplishes anything.

[fan_since79]

Yes, they kill other Muslims because Sunnis hate Shiites, and vice versa. Most of the car bombings in Baghdad are in Shiite neighborhoods. But the ultimate goal is to eliminate or enslave the 'infidel', i.e. non-Muslims, and establish Muslim control over the world.

They're not going to succeed, but they cause an awful lot of misery trying to.

Getting rid of ISIS is a good start. Nothing wrong with that.

 

 

[nate]

Just like getting rid of the Taliban and Alqueda?  The more we kill people there, the more groups will come to hate us and want to fight back.  It is futile and damaging.

[Tank]

4 minutes ago, nate said:

Just like getting rid of the Taliban and Alqueda?  The more we kill people there, the more groups will come to hate us and want to fight back.  It is futile and damaging.

if they were targeting only americans or westerners, then maybe your argument has more weight. they seem to be randomly selecting whoever now, including a lot of muslims, and that shouldn't be okay with anyone. while this isn't a quote that covers everything, it popped into my mind while reading this thread: do as much good as you can for as many as you can as often as you can.

yeah, i know, it sounds a bit trite, but i don't think sitting around and watching this barbaric group of butchers do their thing 'way over there' is, or should be, acceptable to us as a nation.

[nate]

This whole thing is the result of the US and the rest of the west going into the Middle East and telling them how we want them to act, while also taking their oil and installing dictators and governments that will sell us cheap oil.  It is 100% a result of our involvement there.  Before that they were just blowing each other up.

[Lou]

unfortunately, they're no longer just doing their thing "way over there" 

[nate]

22 minutes ago, Tank said:

if they were targeting only americans or westerners, then maybe your argument has more weight. they seem to be randomly selecting whoever now, including a lot of muslims, and that shouldn't be okay with anyone. while this isn't a quote that covers everything, it popped into my mind while reading this thread: do as much good as you can for as many as you can as often as you can.

yeah, i know, it sounds a bit trite, but i don't think sitting around and watching this barbaric group of butchers do their thing 'way over there' is, or should be, acceptable to us as a nation.

Interesting you haven't said the same thing about all the other areas where people are slaughtered daily by their government, you know, the rest of Africa and half of Asia...

[Stradling]

Yes because tank left them out because he only cares about cheap oil or he hates Muslims.  

[nate]

6 minutes ago, Lou said:

unfortunately, they're no longer just doing their thing "way over there" 

Which is why we should be fortifying our defenses instead of having most of our forces overseas.  They will eventually get bored with the fact that they cant penetrate our defenses and go back to killing each other.  We will never be able to stop them by fighting them on their turf, as should be seen by the last 15 years of failure and billions of dollars wasted.  Oh, plus all the American lives that have died, you know, the tally that is more than any lives lost to terrorist attacks on US soil.

[mtangelsfan]

30 minutes ago, nate said:

This whole thing is the result of the US and the rest of the west going into the Middle East and telling them how we want them to act, while also taking their oil and installing dictators and governments that will sell us cheap oil.  It is 100% a result of our involvement there.  Before that they were just blowing each other up.

There is no doubt that the U.S. has a hand in this but to blame the West for all of it is way too simplistic.

[Lou]

most of our forces? that's not even close to being accurate. it's more like 5% of active military personnel. (not to mention the 800, 000 in the reserves)

this doesn't mean I support our continued involvement in the ME, but that sure doesn't preclude us from fortifying our defenses at home. 

[Adam]

Trump should make the Saudis build a wall in the middle of the atlantic from pole to pole that goes to the moon!

[TobiasFunke]

1 minute ago, Adam said:

Trump should make the Saudis build a wall in the middle of the atlantic from pole to pole that goes to the moon!

It's crazy but it just might work...

[Kevin]

Religion of Pieces seems more appropriate these days. 

 

That's all I have to contribute to this thread right now.

[Tank]

50 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Yes because tank left them out because he only cares about cheap oil or he hates Muslims.  

ha, i've been outed!

[Tank]

53 minutes ago, nate said:

Interesting you haven't said the same thing about all the other areas where people are slaughtered daily by their government, you know, the rest of Africa and half of Asia...

i may not have mentioned them but that doesn't mean i feel like we should ignore them and their brutality. but governmental slaughter is different than a group like ISIS, and it's often been US policy to help the rebels against their repressive gov't, not just go in and bomb them back to oblivion.

i won't pretend that US policy and practice in these matters is excellent; it isn't. but i can't see us sitting on our thumbs when it comes to ISIS. the rules of combat and engagement against an enemy have changed since 9/11 when the attacks came from terrorist organizations, not nations. i think we need to do what we can to stop them, especially as their actions concern our immediate interests/allies.

perhaps we respond more to the actions of ISIS because of our relationship with Israel and the potential for this to start spreading to their borders. 

[nate]

Government slaughter is different?  Rwanda, Myanmar, Uganda, etc have all had mass genocides and other than some celebrities speaking out not a damn thing was done.  A lot more people were killed there than ISIS or anyone else has done.

Your last sentence invalidates your original statement that we should still care if they are butchering people way over there... the truth is we should only care if it benefits our wallet or religious moral superiority.

[Blarg]

Governments can enact pressure against other governments to alter or change their policy through diplomacy. Terrorism is the complete breakdown of diplomatic solutions.   

[Adam]

I will not be signing my kid up for this shit that's for sure. Oops. Sorry. Kids. Broads can go to war too. 

[Tank]

9 minutes ago, nate said:

Government slaughter is different?  Rwanda, Myanmar, Uganda, etc have all had mass genocides and other than some celebrities speaking out not a damn thing was done.  A lot more people were killed there than ISIS or anyone else has done.

Your last sentence invalidates your original statement that we should still care if they are butchering people way over there... the truth is we should only care if it benefits our wallet or religious moral superiority.

like i said, it's not a perfect policy or practice by the US. we cite both our interests AND humanitarian reasons for our intervention all the time. my observation over the years has been that we've utilized both reasons for taking (or not taking) action. sometimes we try to let things work themselves out on their own, especially as it concerns a foreign nation that doesn't directly affect our national interests or allies. rwanda, myanmar, and uganda fit that scenario.

i would have no problem if we decided to do something about boko haram.

[Lhalo]

20 minutes ago, Adam said:

I will not be signing my kid up for this shit that's for sure. Oops. Sorry. Kids. Broads can go to war too. 

Don't forget the trannies.

[Lhalo]

17 minutes ago, Tank said:

like i said, it's not a perfect policy or practice by the US. we cite both our interests AND humanitarian reasons for our intervention all the time. my observation over the years has been that we've utilized both reasons for taking (or not taking) action. sometimes we try to let things work themselves out on their own, especially as it concerns a foreign nation that doesn't directly affect our national interests or allies. rwanda, myanmar, and uganda fit that scenario.

i would have no problem if we decided to do something about boko haram.

Tank we're broke and we're not the world's police force. I love ya buddy but I have to disagree that we should be getting involved in these conflicts.

[mtangelsfan]

56 minutes ago, Adam said:

I will not be signing my kid up for this shit that's for sure. Oops. Sorry. Kids. Broads can go to war too. 

What if they decide on their own?  

[Adam]

1 hour ago, mtangelsfan said:

What if they decide on their own?  

They will have that right. I wouldn't stop them

[mtangelsfan]

Just a slightly different perspective with a loved one over there.  I wish he wasn't but I am proud that he is.  He went through ROTC so his eyes were wide open.