Thoughts and prayers for Paris, France.

[Irvrobinson]

We're not so much in a struggle not of ideologies but of a struggle of basic lifestyles. Underneath all that Islamic religious bullshiite, it's basically a power struggle for political control of other countries.

Not in my mind. We're in a struggle with people who believe that their biological lives don't matter, and there's some deity that judges them by the contrived prayers they recite and the acts they commit in the deity's name, and doles out some sort of eternal reward based on that judgment. I think that until that sort of thinking is eliminated we will always have holy wars of some sort. I don't care what the religion is.

 

[markw]

Not in my mind. We're in a struggle with people who believe that their biological lives don't matter, and there's some deity that judges them by the contrived prayers they recite and the acts they commit in the deity's name, and doles out some sort of eternal reward based on that judgment. I think that until that sort of thinking is eliminated we will always have holy wars of some sort. I don't care what the religion is.

I agree. We're just talking semantics here. "They" are out to conquer us and we're just sitting by, doing virtually nothing, in a state of denial.

 

[GO-NAD!]

No, not at all....
We've been informed by "very" credible sources that terrorism is fueled by Videos and/or Global Warming.

Also have been assured that ISIS is "The JV team" and they are "Contained" and also... "On the Run."
We may be drawing another "Line in the Sand" and possibly could almost mean it this time.... no kidding.
Shout out to the Keystone Cops, if they're not busy, we need the help.

They could very well be contained in their desert caliphate - I don't know. That doesn't stop their hangers-on in Europe and elsewhere from stirring $hit.

Perhaps we should invade - after all, it's turned out so well with Afghanistan and Iraq, right?

Right now, Canadian special forces are training the Kurdish Peshmerga, who seem to be the most successful group fighting ISIS right now. Trouble is, the Turks have no interest in seeing a Kurdish state emerge from this mess, as it's likely to stir up their own Kurdish minority.

The Iranians are helping against ISIS, but they have their own agenda and certainly won't welcome "Crusaders" to the fight. The Shia dominated Iraqi government keeps abusing the Sunnis which, at best, makes them rather lackadaisical in opposing ISIS and, at worst, drives them to support ISIS.

All I know is, if an invasion is warranted, it can't be a "kick a$$ first, figure out the rest after" sort of thing. There has to be a viable follow on strategy.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Maybe these guys can help.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/technology/isis-anonymous-answer-1.3328751

 

[Chu Gai]

You left out $15/hr.

 

[gene]

,
Don't play that religion card, Gene. I gave you more credit than that. Nowhere does it say we should simply roll over and die.

Luke 22:35-39 And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." 36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 "For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." 38 So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." 39 Coming out, He went to the Mount of Olives, as He was accustomed, and His disciples also followed Him.

Romans 12:19 "Resisting an attack is not to be confused with taking vengeance, which is the exclusive domain of God

Romans 13:4, ". . . is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.'

We're not so much in a struggle not of ideologies but of a struggle of basic lifestyles. Underneath all that Islamic religious bullshiite, it's basically a power struggle for political control of other countries.

Like the Brain says "Like we do everyday, Pinky. Try to takeover the world."

Do you think they would hesitate to use WMD's if they had access to them?

I say take out their home countries and, and I see this as not too far off, a lot of those guns in this country will be used to defend out country from these. Yes, a lot of mosques and innocent Muslims will get hurt, but that's the fault of their own people using them as shields.

Now, they could turn it around but until they realize that by saying nothing will cost them, then nothing will change and they ARE the enemy.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/09/shock-poll-51-of-muslims-want-sharia-law-25-okay-with-violence-against-infidels/

As for the poor, innocent refugees, well...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322649/The-enemy-Nearly-SEVENTY-arrested-America-ISIS-plots-include-refugees-given-safe-haven-turned-terror.html

Remember, it only took 19 people with box cutters to take down four airliners, both WTC towers, 3,000 lives, and part of the pentagon.

Hmmmm.. why do you think the government wants to take all our guns? Do you really think it's for OUR own good?

Nobody ever said we should simply roll over and die. With you it seems we either go Gung-ho military action or we do nothing. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground and that's the problem. You imply that we aren't doing anything yet we've dropped over 5k bombs on ISIS since their formation. Let me also remind you again that many generals and leading experts agree that ISIS is a direct result of us invading Iraq and destabilizing the region. As bad as Saddam was he did seem to keep the middle east a tad more stable than it is now. I'm not sure what a solution is now but I can tell you an ongoing conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't working. The citizens in those countries need step up and fight their own extremists but we can't make a permanent presence for two reasons: loss of life of our troops (most important) and the strain on our economy. The US already spends more on defense than the next 7 countries combined so clearly we aren't just sitting and doing nothing and our military is NOT weak under Obama or any President that we've had prior.

If we demonize ALL Muslim people, ISIS wins. They want us to continue to bomb the Middle East as its a great recruiting tool for them.

The very idea that you think the government wants to take our guns means your drinking too much NRA and/or Fox News kool aid. Nobody is coming for your guns. We have more guns than people in this country and that isn't going to decrease anytime soon regardless of who is in the oval office.

 

[shadyJ]

Here is an interesting article about ISIS, very eye-opening.

 

[markw]

Nobody ever said we should simply roll over and die. With you it seems we either go Gung-ho military action or we do nothing. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground and that's the problem. You imply that we aren't doing anything yet we've dropped over 5k bombs on ISIS since their formation.

The bombs we dropped had virtually no effect. Now, the ones Russia is dropping actually do some damage.

Let me also remind you again that many generals and leading experts agree that ISIS is a direct result of us invading Iraq and destabilizing the region. As bad as Saddam was he did seem to keep the middle east a tad more stable than it is now.

The region was fairly stable in 2008. Removing the troops allowed that vacuum to suck in the radicals

And, it seems that ISIS is a direct result of our training the Syrian rebels. This is the same mistake Reagan made almost 30 years ago. Those that don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.

http://truthinmedia.com/did-the-us-train-isis-rebels-to-fight-against-assad-in-syria/

I'm not sure what a solution is now but I can tell you an ongoing conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't working. The citizens in those countries need step up and fight their own extremists but we can't make a permanent presence for two reasons: loss of life of our troops (most important) and the strain on our economy. The US already spends more on defense than the next 7 countries combined so clearly we aren't just sitting and doing nothing and our military is NOT weak under Obama or any President that we've had prior.

Well, what we're doing now isn't working, is it? I feel stronger, more decisive action is needed, not the token resistance the US has provided up to now. since they brought their destruction to our, and European shores, I say rain it back on their country.

http://truthinmedia.com/did-the-us-train-isis-rebels-to-fight-against-assad-in-syria/The very idea that you think the governmen.t wants to take our guns means to me that you're drinking a little too much NRA and Fox News Kool Aid. Nobody is coming for your guns. We have more guns than people in this country and that isn't going to decrease anytime soon regardless of who is in the oval office.[/QUOTE]Really? Perhaps you should tell this to Obama.

What, exactly, does he mean by "common sense gun laws that's a pretty ambiguous statement.

http://thehill.com/opinion/katie-pavlich/255971-katie-pavlich-yes-obama-does-want-to-take-your-guns

"It should be noted that after the Britain handgun ban was implemented, crime committed with guns skyrocketed and the ban has done little to reduce overall homicide rates. The same has been shown for homicides committed with firearms in Australia after the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms."

 

[Rickster71]

They could very well be contained in their desert caliphate - I don't know. That doesn't stop their hangers-on in Europe and elsewhere from stirring $hit.

Oh come on my friend.
The guys that claimed responsibility for all these these terrorist acts didn't claim responsibility signed as, "hangers on" ... they're a worldwide terrorist organization. They're extremely well funded and are not the 'JV team' and are not 'Contained' and are not caused by a video or global warming.
I'm not suggesting anything as to what should be done.....
Just wondering why we're riding the Denial Train...... first stop, Hyperbole.

 

[gene]

The bombs we dropped had virtually no effect. Now, the ones Russia is dropping actually do some damage.

The region was fairly stable in 2008. Removing the troops allowed that vacuum to suck in the radicals

And, it seems that ISIS is a direct result of our training the Syrian rebels. This is the same mistake Reagan made almost 30 years ago. Those that don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.

http://truthinmedia.com/did-the-us-train-isis-rebels-to-fight-against-assad-in-syria/

Well, what we're doing now isn't working, is it? I feel stronger, more decisive action is needed, not the token resistance the US has provided up to now. since they brought their destruction to our, and European shores, I say rain it back on their country.

http://truthinmedia.com/did-the-us-train-isis-rebels-to-fight-against-assad-in-syria/The very idea that you think the governmen.t wants to take our guns means to me that you're drinking a little too much NRA and Fox News Kool Aid. Nobody is coming for your guns. We have more guns than people in this country and that isn't going to decrease anytime soon regardless of who is in the oval office.

Really? Perhaps you should tell this to Obama.

What, exactly, does he mean by "common sense gun laws that's a pretty ambiguous statement.

http://thehill.com/opinion/katie-pavlich/255971-katie-pavlich-yes-obama-does-want-to-take-your-guns

"It should be noted that after the Britain handgun ban was implemented, crime committed with guns skyrocketed and the ban has done little to reduce overall homicide rates. The same has been shown for homicides committed with firearms in Australia after the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms."

We can sit here and link articles to each other on:

• the formation of ISIS
• whether Obama is a muslim or not
• whether the US economy is better under a republican or democratic president
• If gun laws make us safer or not
  
• etc

But why don't we just save each other a whole lot of time and agree that both political parties don't really have any real answers and are mostly concerned with their own self interests over ours.

I see you now switched the topic to gun control. I won't go there. That argument is so overplayed and overdone. I know the logic that if everyone had guns none of this ever would have happened. The same can be said if we reversed the statement to if NOBODY had guns we'd all be safer and in reality the later would be the truth but it's never going to happen.

The real solution is to have Superman collect every gun and nuke and throw it into the sun. But then if aliens invade we will be virtually defenseless unless a few clever citizens pick up a board with a nail in it to fight them off. Let's hope for the best.

 

[crossedover]

Oh come on my friend.
The guys that claimed responsibility for all these these terrorist acts didn't claim responsibility signed as, "hangers on" ... they're a worldwide terrorist organization. They're extremely well funded and are not the 'JV team' and are not 'Contained' and are not caused by a video or global warming.
I'm not suggesting anything as to what should be done.....
Just wondering why we're riding the Denial Train...... first stop, Hyperbole.

There is only one way to win a war: FIGHT

 

[Tao1]

Someone went ahead and interviewed some ISIS fighters: http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/

Essentially the young people who grew up without one or both parents due to the US military operation in Iraq several years ago, are going to one of the only options to support their families: ISIS.


People are asking: what to do about ISIS? Well the same old thing isn't working. First off we can go to the concept of simple manners. The neighbour that goes around causing a ruckus, will probably be hated by the rest of his neighbours. In short, the US should probably keep mostly to its own affairs. If an issue is causing the US problems, the the US should probably be civil and polite in trying to resolve problems. Right now its policy to deal with the neighbour's dog pooing on the lawn, is to grab the shot gun, kick the door in, punch out the neighbours, shoot the dog, and leave them to clean up the mess.

Going into a bit more detail: The US went into Iraq and didn't give a crap about the citizens. It didn't care to police communities at first, let alone leave a positive impact on the country. They were simply there to do their own business, regardless of what it cost Iraq. Considering this mentality, no wonder there are people who are pissed off at the West.

Americans jump to this ridiculous conclusion that it is America's job to police the world, simply on the merit that they are the largest super power, and have the most advanced military. These alone are faaaar from making the US qualified to play such a role. American is not qualified to police the world, and has been paying for its own hubris for several decades now.

The common soldier is trained to kill, and indoctrinated to hate and despise the enemy. Essentially this is a very similar way that terrorist organizations train their fighters. This is an antiquated and very crude way of doing things. Obviously soldiers followed their training and saw any non american as a potential enemy, and essentially this mindset was the seed of the strife caused in Iraq. In my opinion the way to 'fight' terrorism is to deal with the root causes that cause people to behave this way. "Good and evil' is essentially a myth. People are products of their environment (as outlined in that article above).

In order to fight problems like ISIS we have to prevent people from being in environments which cause them to take to desperate measures. The first step that America can do, is to stop causing strife in other countries by taking responsibility for their actions. This can be done by overhauling the way countries intervene in the affairs of others. The current model of a soldier falls far short. Military training is only the cornerstone of what would be needed. In my opinion a 'soldier's' training only begins with combat. They would also need training in human behaviour, the local languages and cultures and customs, as well as human rights and law training. Further they would need to be trained in policing and community relations. The military training would be needed to remove the armed groups, and the rest of the training to start adding stability to the region.

This would lead to a very specialized professional, and would require pulling people from a higher standard that simply bottom of the barrel as is typical in military recruitment. The 'soldier' would also need to be paid much more, however if a new model is successful, the US would save a lot of money in the long run by not creating a nemesis every decade or so which spawns a whole nother series of conflicts and military costs.

 

[Alex2507]

Right now, Canadian special forces are training the Kurdish Peshmerga ...

Training them to do what? Ice fish?

 

[Rickster71]

In short, the US should probably keep mostly to its own affairs.

Going into a bit more detail: The US went into Iraq and didn't give a crap about the citizens.

Did they care about our citizens?
We went there "After" they killed thousands in the 9/11 attack.... we reacted to what they did first.
You do understand that we went there because 95% of our politicians wanted to go there.
I can't imagine justifying killing women and children because I was poor.
I also don't think we police the world and shouldn't give money and aid to countries that hate us.

 

[Tao1]

Did they care about our citizens?
We went there "After" they killed thousands in the 9/11 attack.... we reacted to what they did first.
You do understand that we went there because 95% of our politicians wanted to go there.
I can't imagine justifying killing women and children because I was poor.
I also don't think we police the world and shouldn't give money and aid to countries that hate us.

Iraq citizens had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Politians shouldn't be calling the shots without backing from the citizens, and they should also be the voice of reason for the citizens.

America justified killing women in children because vengeance was needed, and in war 'collateral damage is unavoidable'...

 

[crossedover]

Someone went ahead and interviewed some ISIS fighters: http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/

Essentially the young people who grew up without one or both parents due to the US military operation in Iraq several years ago, are going to one of the only options to support their families: ISIS.


People are asking: what to do about ISIS? Well the same old thing isn't working. First off we can go to the concept of simple manners. The neighbour that goes around causing a ruckus, will probably be hated by the rest of his neighbours. In short, the US should probably keep mostly to its own affairs.

Going into a bit more detail: The US went into Iraq and didn't give a crap about the citizens. It didn't care to police communities at first, let alone leave a positive impact on the country. They were simply there to do their own business, regardless of what it cost Iraq. Considering this mentality, no wonder there are people who are pissed off at the West.

Americans jump to this ridiculous conclusion that it is American's job to police the world, simply on the merit that they are the largest super power, and have the most advanced military. These alone are faaaar from making the US qualified to play such a role. American is not qualified to police the world, and has been paying for its own hubris for several decades now.

The common soldier is trained to kill, and indoctrinated to hate and despise the enemy. Essentially this is a very similar way that terrorist organizations train their fighters. This is an antiquated and very crude way of doing things. Obviously soldiers followed their training and saw any non american as a potential enemy, and essentially this mindset was the seed of the strife caused in Iraq. In my opinion the way to 'fight' terrorism is to deal with the root causes that cause people to behave this way. "Good and evil' is essentially a myth. People are products of their environment (as outlined in that article above).

In order to fight problems like ISIS we have to prevent people from being in environments which cause them to take to desperate measures. The first step that America can do, is to stop causing strife in other countries by taking responsibility for their actions. This can be done by overhauling the way countries intervene in the affairs of others. The current model of a soldier falls far short. Military training is only the cornerstone of what would be needed. In my opinion a 'soldier's' training only begins with combat. They would also need training in human behaviour, the local languages and cultures and customs, as well as human rights and law training. Further they would need to be trained in policing and community relations. The military training would be needed to removed the armed groups, and the rest of the training to start adding stability to the region.

This would lead to a very specialized professional, and would require pulling people from a higher standard that simply bottom of the barrel as is typical in military recruitment. The 'soldier' would also need to be paid much more, however if a new model is successful, the US would save a lot of money in the long run by not creating a nemesis every decade or so which spawns a whole nother series of conflicts and military costs.

Im really not sure where to start...


In order to fight problems like ISIS we have to prevent people from being in environments which cause them to take to desperate measures. The first step that America can do, is to stop causing strife in other countries by taking responsibility for their actions. This can be done by overhauling the way countries intervene in the affairs of others.

so we have to prevent, but in a PC non aggressive way as to appease someone. How do you change environments like the middle east with just words(ask Carter, and many others) Im pretty sure since the Turks, British, French and Germans left the northern slate of Africa and the middle east, the same wars going on before the occupation resumed. It has to be 1 or 0 in this situation, as towing the line will result in loss of life on going, with no resolution. Its proven that they wont govern themselves without savagery, so true options are limited

 

[Tao1]

Im really not sure where to start...


In order to fight problems like ISIS we have to prevent people from being in environments which cause them to take to desperate measures. The first step that America can do, is to stop causing strife in other countries by taking responsibility for their actions. This can be done by overhauling the way countries intervene in the affairs of others.

so we have to prevent, but in a PC non aggressive way as to appease someone. How do you change environments like the middle east with just words(ask Carter, and many others) Im pretty sure since the Turks, British, French and Germans left the northern slate of Africa and the middle east, the same wars going on before the occupation resumed. It has to be 1 or 0 in this situation, as towing the line will result in loss of life on going, with no resolution. Its proven that they wont govern them selves without savagery, so true options are limited

The analogy wasn't perfect. I didn't mean a zero violence approach. My main point is the mentality the US has used is getting them into trouble.

In Afghanistan when the soviets invaded, the US were happy to have organized Afghanistan groups do America's fighting for them. When that was done, they left those armed groups to fight among themselves and cause chaos in that country. Al'quaiida was born.

The US did a similar thing in Iraq. If they went in with their forces trained to bring stability to the country, rather than just 'trained to kill'' a lot of grief would have been averted. The country needed to be policed right away, and at first Bush said they wouldn't do that. Things go so bad that he reversed his decision, but the damage had been done.

I guess it is kind of like the forestry industry. You have to clean up after yourself, and make sure the region remains productive.

 

[Rickster71]

Iraq citizens had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Politians shouldn't be calling the shots without backing from the citizens, and they should also be the voice of reason for the citizens.

America justified killing women in children because vengeance was needed, and in war 'collateral' damage is unavoidable...

95% of our politicians wanted to go to war. What did you do, or how would you have stopped it?
My point is, some other group/country attacked the US first.
They didn't care about our women or children...why should we care about there's?
That's how our government works (I don't agree in 'how' we fought the war, or where) we elect them and they call the shots... so to speak.

 

[crossedover]

The analogy wasn't perfect. I didn't mean a zero violence approach. My main point is the mentality the US has used is getting them into trouble.

In Afghanistan when the soviets invaded, the US were happy to have organized Afghanistan groups do America's fighting for them. When that was done, they left those armed groups to fight among themselves and cause chaos in that country. Al'quaiida was born.

The US did a similar thing in Iraq. If they went in with their forces trained to bring stability to the country, rather than just 'trained to kill'' a lot of grief would have been averted. The country needed to be policed right away, and at first Bush said they wouldn't do that. Things go so bad that he reversed his decision, but the damage had been done.

I guess it is kind of like the forestry industry. You have to clean up after yourself, and make sure the region remains productive.

Well the one point you reference in regards to cleaning up after yourself is true. If we look back to WWII Germany and Japan were able to rebound from defeat with oversight and backing. We didnt get that chance in Iraq this time, as within less than 10 years we began withdrawal, sadly

 

[gene]

Did they care about our citizens?
We went there "After" they killed thousands in the 9/11 attack.... we reacted to what they did first.
You do understand that we went there because 95% of our politicians wanted to go there.
I can't imagine justifying killing women and children because I was poor.
I also don't think we police the world and shouldn't give money and aid to countries that hate us.

Iraq was NOT responsible for 9/11. WE invaded the wrong country after 9/11. Let's just be clear on that.