tar

I think in all these debates, the lies fabricated by the terrorists, to make us look bad, so that world opinion would suggest we leave, are ignored or allowed to stand. Like Overtone's account of the peaceful parents coming down to reopen their school. I remember as our tanks had entered Bagdad, and were just blocks away from the broadcast station, how Saddam was putting out propaganda about how his army was defeating the Western invaders.

Ten Oz, We would be safer with fewer assault style weapons on the street. That is my opinion. But what kind of legislation to accomplish that is up for debate. For instance, there is talk that people involved in domestic quarrels should be denied a gun license...I have exchanged angry words with my wife. Had she called the police and said she was afraid for her safety, it does not matter if I never laid a finger on her or ever would hurt her, just her report, false or not might disallow me from getting a weapon, should I want one, if such legislation were passed. So the difference between domestic terrorism and international terrorism does not come down to the assault weapon ban. An important debate but it does not much directly have to do with people that want us out of the Middle East, and Israel out of picture. "Zarqawi opposed the presence of U.S. and Western military forces in the Islamic world, as well as the West's support for the existence of Israel. In late 2004 he joined al-Qaeda, and pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden. After this al-Tawhid wal-Jihad became known as Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, also known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and al-Zarqawi was given the al-Qaeda title, "Emir of Al Qaeda in the Country of Two Rivers."[3] In September 2005, he declared "all-out war" on Shi'ites in Iraq, after the Iraqi government offensive on insurgents in the Sunni town of Tal Afar.[4] He dispatched numerous suicide bombers throughout Iraq to attack American soldiers and areas with large concentrations of Shia militias. He is also thought to be responsible for the 2005 bombing of three hotels in Amman, Jordan.[5] Zarqawi was killed in a targeted killing by a Joint U.S. force on June 7, 2006, while attending a meeting in an isolated safehouse in Hibhib, a small village approximately 8 km (5.0 mi) west-northwest of Baqubah. One United States Air Force F-16C jet dropped two 500-pound (230 kg) guided bombs on the safehouse.[6]" Overtone, Earlier I got the 4 civilian contractors being dragged through the streets, mixed up in order with the 82nd airborne fighting with the crowd because I saw March and April and put them in order of the months, not looking at the years. But you threw me off because you were talking about the peaceful hamlet being invaded by the child molesting 82nd and that there was no looting going on and such. What you are forgetting to mention is that we had just invaded the country, were looking for Saddam, Saddams Guard has melted into the woodwork and Saddam as one of his final acts had released the prisoners from a prison "Abu Graib". The crowd was out past curfew, hardly the time to take your kids to school, or petition for its reopening, and the place your account (from a slightly left leaning publication) said the crowd was marching "past" to get to, was the school they were coming to besiege. Had they been on their way to a PTA meeting, they might have taken a different route, and they might have done it in daylight. From Wiki article on Falluja. "Fallujah was one of the least affected areas of Iraq immediately after the 2003 invasion by the US-led Coalition. Iraqi Army units stationed in the area abandoned their positions and disappeared into the local population, leaving unsecured military equipment behind. Fallujah was also the site of a Ba'athist resort facility called "Dreamland", located a few kilometers outside the city proper. The damage the city had avoided during the initial invasion was negated by damage from looters, who took advantage of the collapse of Saddam Hussein's government. The looters targeted former government sites, the Dreamland compound, and the nearby military bases. Aggravating this situation was the proximity of Fallujah to the infamous Abu Ghraib prison, from which Saddam, in one of his last acts, had released all prisoners. The new mayor of the city—Taha Bidaywi Hamed, selected by local tribal leaders—was strongly pro-American[citation needed]. When the US Army entered the town in April 2003, they positioned themselves at the vacated Ba'ath Party headquarters. A Fallujah Protection Force composed of local Iraqis was set up by the US-led occupants to help fight the rising resistance. On the evening of 28 April 2003, a crowd of 200 people defied a curfew imposed by the Americans and gathered outside a secondary school used as a military HQ to demand its reopening. Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne stationed on the roof of the building fired upon the crowd, resulting in the deaths of 17 civilians and the wounding of over 70.[14] American forces claim they were responding to gunfire from the crowd, while the Iraqis involved deny this version. Human Rights Watch also dispute the American claims, and says that the evidence suggests the US troops fired indiscriminately and used disproportionate force.[15] A protest against the killings two days later was also fired upon by US troops resulting in two more deaths. On 31 March 2004, Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah ambushed a convoy containing four American private military contractors from Blackwater USA, who were conducting delivery for food caterers ESS.[16]" Thread, In any case, Bush wanted a regime change as part of his war on terror following 9/11, the debates on whether or not Saddam was a sweetheart are not the important ones here, or whether or not we might have had a peaceful solution with Saddam, the question is whether or not regime change was indicated in our effort to fight global terrorism. We could draw an analogy with Assad. Why exactly do we want him out of power? Is it proper for Hilary to suggest a regime change in Syria? Is the whole effort against global terrorism, some of whose plans were drawn up in the Clinton years, still in force? I have lost the citing, but in one of the Wiki articles I was reading this morning about Iraq it talked of a larger plan, that Iraq was just the start of, that included Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Somalia and Iran, as places were terrorists that wanted to hurt us, were. I am not sure that the argument that we should just stay out of the middle east to prevent terrorist attacks is a good one. If we would leave the middle east alone that would be a victory for the terrorists. That is one of their main goals. If we leave them alone, the place becomes a Caliphate, with rules incompatible with Western values. If we fight them we drop bombs and kill civilians and cause death and destruction and tear up childrens lives. And the fact that world opinion falls on the side of peace, DOES NOT mean that world opinion falls on the side of the terrorists. Regards, TAR As for uranium being a possible cause of cancer in children in Fallujah, a left leaner might suggest that the U.S. military used an experimental dirty bomb, where a reasonable person might surmise Saddam had something going there, that got shelled or somehow else released into the environment.

Ten Oz, Ok, I was wrong about her radicalizing him. They probably fed on each other. But the fact the male had thought about an act, 2 years ago, does not mean that the killing of Jihadi John was not a trigger, and the Paris Attacks were not an example, and ISIS' call to kill us, any way possible, was not the command they heeded. If there is a central command of ISIS, we would be safer if there was not. Regards, TAR

Overtone, So why do you need me to admit I am at fault for America's actions, and you will not admit equal accountability? Clinton has used a few bombs, Bush and Bush and Obama have all used bombs. All our presidents, all our commanders in chief. All responsible for the state department and setting our foreign policy. If we have accrued a good name or a bad name in the world, we all have had a hand in it. If we had not had a strong military, we would not have been asked to be policeman of the world. We would not have had the power to stand against any strongman. When we asked the world to join us in our war against terror, other countries came to our aid. We did not "cause" terrorism, because the 82nd airborne misread a crowd of Baathists. A few times in this thread I have misread people's intentions because their fire was coming from the same parts of the woods that you are firing from. Occasionally people fire at me because trump has not thought his ideas through, or because the 82nd was in an angry city. But we were an occupying army, or a visiting police force, and either way the 3rd amendment does not apply. Our troops were not the Iraqi army. We were there to quell the resistance that the remainder of Saddam's guard was still putting up. So that the Shia and Sunni and the Kurds could cobble together a country. Granted they did not play well together, but its not like everybody threw flowers at our feet when we defeated Saddam and took the chance to have free elections and govern each other peacefully, and then the 82nd shot everybody up. Regards, TAR

iNow, And perhaps you don't feel equating the angel Gabriel to a pink unicorn could have unsettled anybody? But go ahead and blame me for not noticing that bombs tick people off. I will be your scapegoat. Regards, TAR lets say you are standing in a room with a thousand Muslims asking the Iman why unbelievers can not visit a holy Mosque in Medina, and he tells you you can go, if you say in Arabic that there is but one Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. Then you would admit the truth of existence, be the Muslim you were born being, and would be admitted to the sacred place. Would you convert? Excuse yourself from the podium? Talk about the beliefs of the thousand you are standing among like their beliefs are like believing that pink unicorns give leprechauns erections? here we are iNow in a room with potentially 1000 Muslims and 1000 Christians and 1000 Jews say something that could not possibly hurt somebody's feelings and challenge their faith and cause them cognitive dissonance while at the same time holding to your own steadfast beliefs show me whose team you are on one neg rep anybody else? really, if you are angry at my question, give me a neg rep I said I would be your scapegoat. I know there is more than one on this board that has heaped ridicule on people of faith.

Daesh has a history of setting tires on fire, booby traps and sacrificing lives for their cause. People will die, ridding Ramadi of Daesh. Some of that blood will be on our hands. But a lot of that blood will be on Daesh's hands, and hopefully the Iraqi Army will conduct themselves in a way that minimizes the death of non-combatants. Ten Oz, I understand change. But everybody does not change the way you and I might have changed. An abridged version of Islam is required to coexist with modern society anywhere...everywhere. An abridged version of the Old testament came out a while back called the New testament. Later the Koran came out, retelling the old testament values and stories and making some modifications to vilify the idol worshipping tribes of the desert, and the money changing Jews, and the Christians that gave Allah associates. The scheme worked well to bind together the tribes of Arabia under Muhammed(pbuh)...and 1/3 of the world wishes to live as Muhammed lived. It is hard to tell if a person circling the stone on Hajj, reciting the memorized verses of the Koran, can separate what worked 1400 years ago, from what will work today. Regards, TAR Some can, and we can live in peace with them. Some cannot and we will have to fight them, or die or convert or pay homage to them, ourselves. http://blogs.brandeis.edu/freshideasfromhbi/jewish-life-under-a-caliphate/ Or flee. so do we or do we not have reason to fear what might be going on inside a Mosque in hometown U.S.A.? we have stepped in and disbanded death cults before is it fascist bigotry that would have us want to sit in on a meeting or two, or a simple desire to know what is going on transparency and when it comes to fleeing, there are a lot more folks trying to get into the U.S. than trying to get out Mark David Chapman used to be a taker of psychedelic drugs and a lover of the Beatles, then he changed. He was born again, and could not resolve the line "and no religion too". He killed a folk hero and major player in the peace movement because the two ideas could not coexist in his head. He figured he could resolve it, by killing John Lennon. We still let Chapman live, because we believed in "imagine". Conflicted a bit, we surely are. But when we cannot resolve internal conflicts (in our own heads) we probably should not strike out and scapegoat. I have been trying to get Overtone to stop hating Voldemort, but she still has a certain segment of the population pigeon holed. She will accept others trusting good Muslims to police their own Mosques, but will not admit a member of the 82nd airborne can be a good person.

"It's disconcerting to realize that businessmen, generals, soldiers, men of action are less corrupted by power than intellectuals... You take a conventional man of action, and he's satisfied if you obey. But not the intellectual. He doesn't want you just to obey. He wants you to get down on your knees and praise the one who makes you love what you hate and hate what you love. In other words, whenever the intellectuals are in power, there's soul-raping going on." From Hoffer Overtone, I did not read the long account you posted, but I looked at the other links. I had already read and reread the passage about the crowd marching "past" where the 82nd was stationed. And thought it might be bias as that is not what crowds do. They besiege. And if they were a peaceful crowd that just came to talk, what do you think they came to talk about? More a demand...anyway.. That was then, this is now, and another town is being held by a peaceful(not) Sunni group and the control of that town is in the balance. It is not the 82nd outside the city, it is the Iraqi army. Shia without, Sunni within, bullets flying and civilians used as human shields. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/residents-trapped-in-sealed-casket-is-stronghold-as-iraqi-forces-close-in/ar-AAgcfht?ocid=spartandhp "I wish that could happen soon to get rid of the Daesh nightmare, but what could happen afterwards could be worse," said Omar, a father of two daughters. "We will be the scapegoat."" Regards, TAR let's just say you were a member of the 82nd and such things as crowds dragging burning civilian contractors behind might happen to you and at the end of that interview with the guy that made the suicide vests and picked the targets he expressed very nicely his reasons for blowing up Shia so that they would convert This should be in your top 4 creators of ISIS. The Shia-Sunni issues predated the 82nd being in the old Baathist headquarters. and if you were right now a Sunni trapped in Ramadi would you rather it was the Iraqi army or the 82nd coming in to free you from Daesh?

"Although the majority of the residents were Sunni and had supported Saddam Hussein's rule, Fallujah lacked military presence just after his fall. There was little looting and the new mayor of the city—Taha Bidaywi Hamed, was selected by local tribal leaders—was pro-United States.[4] When the U.S. Army's 1st Battalion / 2nd Brigade 82nd Airborne entered the town on April 23, 2003, they positioned themselves at the vacated Ba'ath Party headquarters, a local school house, and the Ba'ath party resort just outside town (Dreamland)—the US bases inside the town erased some goodwill, especially when many in the city had been hoping the US Army would stay outside of the relatively calm city. Instability, April 2003 – March 2004[edit] Main article: Fallujah killings of April 2003 On the evening of April 28, 2003, several hundred residents defied the US curfew and marched down the streets of Fallujah, past the soldiers positioned in the former Ba'ath party headquarters, to protest the military presence inside the local school. US soldiers fired upon the crowd, killing as many as 17 and wounding more than 70 of the protesters. US soldiers alleged that they were returning fire, but protesters stated they were unarmed.[5][6][7] Independent observers from human rights group found no evidence that US forces had come under attack.[1] The US suffered no casualties from the incident. Two days later, on April 30, the 82d Airborne was replaced in the city by 2nd Troop (Fox) / U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. The 3rd Cavalry was significantly smaller in number and chose not to occupy the same schoolhouse where the shooting had occurred two days earlier. On the same day soldiers shot three protesters in front of U.S. Forward Operating Base "Laurie," established in the former Ba'ath party headquarters,[8] and next to the Mayor's office. At this point in time the 3rd Cavalry controlled all of Al Anbar province, and it became evident a larger force was needed. The now battalion-sized element of the 3rd Cavalry (2nd squadron) in Fallujah was replaced by the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division.[citation needed] During the summer, the US Army decided to close down its last remaining base inside the city (the Ba'ath party headquarters; FOB Laurie). At this point the 3d ACR had all of its forces stationed outside Fallujah in the former Baathist resort, Dreamland. After the May 11 surrender of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, the incoming 3d Infantry Division also began using the large MEK compound adjacent to Dreamland to accommodate its larger troop presence in Fallujah. Under its control, the 3d Infantry Division maintained no bases inside the city of Fallujah. On 30 June a "huge explosion" occurred in a mosque in which the imam, Sheikh Laith Khalil, and eight other people were killed. Residents of the city stated the army fired a missile at the mosque, while U.S. Colonel Joseph Disalvo stated that the explosion took place in a building adjacent to the mosque.[9] Just a couple of days earlier things had been much quieter, although US troops had been confiscating motorbikes as a preventive measure against terrorist attacks.[10]" Overtone, How from this, you figure the 82nd was one of the top 4 influences that created ISIS, is beyond me. You are prejudging the situation in retrospect. Listening to the radio during that time, I was afraid for the troops in a town with all of Saddam's friends and family and what remained of his guard. I believed the crowd that marched on the base, after curfew was not there to talk. I also believe the mosque explosion was not of our doing. Regards, TAR I can not tell you how many times there were explosions and shootings that killed people, where the anti-Zionist propaganda machine pointed fingers at our military. I can't tell you how many times they were pointing in the proper direction...but at the time, I knew the blame was not properly placed on us, because that is not the way we operated, and we were there as police, looking to keep bad stuff from happening. There were times during this whole thing, where we bombed the wrong thing, or shot the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, but some of the violence was anti occupation violence, and if the police are shot at, they most certainly will shoot back. We were there to control the situation. Perhaps inappropriate to put a fighting force in as policeman, as was one of the political arguments of the day, but we were not the instigators of Sunni on Shia violence, or of Shia on Sunni violence. It would, after all, be to the Baathist's political advantage to have the victors and occupiers of their town, look bad. And of the many times we were made to look bad, only a small portion was truly because we were bad. Regards, TAR Thread, Trump is being vilified for his comments about keeping Muslims out, and I eagerly join the chorus because it is so against our constitutional principles, and so stupid to boot, and not a way "the most of us" would want a commander in chief and head of state to act and think. However, during one debate on TV on MSNBC the point was brought up, that the feeling that Muslim beliefs and our constitutional beliefs are incompatible is not held only by bigots and fascists, but by a majority of the general population. This is important to consider when we are talking about the we and the they. Sometimes we improperly place or heap blame on the bad guy because we want to place our own conflicted thoughts on someone else. So the question is the same question when dealing with fundamental Christian values, as when dealing with fundamental Muslim values, and that is according to the constitution, a person can follow any god he or she wishes to follow, but the State can not, and the individual can not, where in following a particular god, abridge the rights of another individual, to follow their god. This principle is plainly defeated in the Koran's way of dealing with unbelievers. So if a Muslim in America practices an abridged version of Islam and allows and expects unbelievers to exist on an equal footing under the law of the land, then everything is good. However, if a Muslim is waiting for the last battle between good and evil, or if they are waiting for all the world to be for Islam...we have a problem. Regards, TAR Someone earlier suggested we shouldn't worry about the Caliphate because ISIS was just a little force in a little corner of the world, and the world would not let it expand. This bothered me a little, because we have underestimated the ability of the movement to gain followers. ISIS took towns and territory at amazing speed. We turned around two years ago, and there they were, with Maps with Black all around the Mediterranean in their plans. We can hope for tolerance, but we should not expect ISIS to reciprocate. Regards, TAR If ISIS has conflicting plans. One plan to force a final battle of good and evil in some town in the area specified in the literature, and a conflicting plan to establish a peaceful Islamic Caliphate for all the world's believers to attend, then we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Fight them and we are giving them the battle they want. Don't fight them and we are giving them the Caliphate they want. In either case I use the word them when referring to ISIS. There is nothing that even reminds me a little bit of me in their behavior, goals and attitudes. Unless perhaps I am exactly like them...and we still have a problem.

Willie71, I don't know? If it is not me and my countrymen, I am out of candidates. You have any suggestions? Regards, TAR not Daesh I hope Ten Oz, It is hard to go in and help Assad rebuild his country, or expand the irrigation system from the river, if we are not talking to him, because he is evil. Regards, TAR Willie71, But you bring up a good point. Why are we standing in the way of Putin's bids for control? Are we evil to do so, or are we good? How do you feel about Crimea? Let's say we are evil for destroying the climate, and fighting communism and supporting Zionists. Do we just make friends with Assad, help Russia bomb the Turkmen and the Kurds, and let Iran and Russia fight for control of Syria? The link you posted was indeed disturbing. However I was at fort Benning, training in the 82nd airborne division and we NEVER had a class on raping and killing civilians. If we back Saddam or Bin Laden or Maliki and they do horrible stuff, we don't always have control. We gave them the training, and equipment and power, to do our bidding, but did not have control of how they operated. ISIS is using our equipment, and probably some of our military training. I am linked to the evil they do, but they are definitely not doing my bidding. Regards, TAR Thread, I suppose there is a possibility that black planes are keeping watch over us, and we are all just stooges of a powerful elite. But if that is true, then we are all just stooges of a powerful elite, and they will manipulate us and fool us into thinking we are fighting evil and doing good, while we are just keeping them in power. But if this is true, then it does not matter what we think or how we feel or who we lobby or vote for, because left or right, rich or poor, smart or dumb, progressive or conservative, we would be playing right into their hands. Winners of elections are just figureheads. Our leaders and representatives would be stooges as well. We would be players in somebody else's game. I reject that notion. We can close the training camp any time we feel it should be closed. We can fight ISIS in any manner we feel is appropriate. We are in charge. We are nobody's fool. We make our own messes and we clean them up. We chose sides. I realize it is a complicated world. I realize we were all devastated 35 years ago, today, when the singer of "Imagine", was killed. I have dreamed his dream same as everybody else. But then there are those daft Chinese. Regards, TAR We have our annual bear hunt going on in NJ. Highest population density of Black Bear, and highest population density of humans, in one state. Incidents of human-black bear confrontations are increasing as we move into their ranges. So there are protests, as always, and an older woman tells us how inhumane and evil and unfeeling the hunters are.

granted, we can set our priorities, but we set them together that is why we have elections you lobby with the facts you lobby with your opinionsvote in the laws we want to collectively go by you can't say your way is better just because you are smarter than me and know that heads hitting rocks is likely to cause brain injury and therefore we should outlaw jumping off of waterfalls There are many who can see there have been more and more extreme weather conditions and we should lower our emissions. I worked for a company who stressed EnergyStar compliance and cared genuinely about the environment. Does not make me stop driving my car though and I would hate to have to pay an additional tax on my emissions, on top of gas taxes....well wait. You are all bringing in these anti religious, and anti business and anti police and anti republican arguments, when Imatfaal asked us not to. Anti American arguments are germane. But getting into the Global Climate summit is only related if it has to do with security and France closing its borders and cracking down on local Muslim groups. Otherwise, I think talking about our local politics is only useful in terms of understanding human psychology. As such the justifications for taking this side or that side are not as important as the fact, which we all by now agree on, that we absolutely do take sides. Regards, TAR ten oz, Come on. I don't only care about me and my tree. I would like to see a Christian in Syria decorate their tree next year, as well. If ISIS should establish a Caliphate of the size they hope, and with the rules they hope to impose, there will be a lot of people in the area with very little Christmas spirit, next year. Regards, TAR My dad's left hand is crippled so Jews in another country could live free from persecution. I served two years in Germany so West Germans would not have to live like East Germans. Don't accuse me about just worrying about my Christmas. I have hopes for peace on Earth, good will toward man. That I am willing to sacrifice other father's sons in a battle against ISIS is not even the question. The men and women in our military are already committed to protecting my way of life. I support them. And suggest exactly what our president is doing, in terms of sending in special forces, and not a full invasion force. I only differ in suggesting we go in beside Assad's troops. that we go into the tunnels beneath Raqqa and root out ISIS leadership, because coalition bombs will not reach them, and will just break more stuff, cause more pollution, and damage more lives and property than going in in person, would do I am 61 with bad knees and I don't like close spaces. One of my countrymen who can do the job will have to actually take the risk and get done, what "the most of us" think needs getting done. I never served in combat. I know its terrible. My father, who did serve in combat tells me of an American tank hit by a German 88 and seeing an occupant of the tank emerge on fire. Terrible sight that no man should see. His serving protected "the rest of us" from that horror. He still lives with the memory. He suffers for us even still. I think it worth the effort, and the blood and the money so that people born today will never have to watch the Jihadi John show. And "the rest of us" are spared ever having to withess him cut off the head of an innocent, again.

hypocritical and anti-American both you are forgetting the commander in chief responsibilities of a president a president can order the bombing of a city in times of war, or the sending in of a cruise missle in the Balkans, or the assassination of an terrorist leader by drone strike.

Last night my wife and daughter and I got a Christmas tree as we do every year. When we were going down, we were debating whether to get the tree first and have it unguarded on the roof of our car while we ate, or to eat first and possibly have the place that we were heading for, where we did not know their hours, close while we were eating. We decided to get the tree first on the theory that anybody that would steal a Christmas tree, probably was poor and we could consider it a donation if it was stolen, and just go get another. Reality is, I should not have worried about it in the first place. Nobody is going to steal a Christmas tree. If you believed in the spirit of Christmas, you would already have plans to get onethat did not involve stealing one. If you didn't believe in Christmas spirit, you would have no need for a tree. So I was silly to worry about anybody stealing a tree off the roof of my car, based solely on a mother's day where an azalea my daughters gave my wife and that we planted one evening, was a hole the next morning.

Willie71, That is a weird argument. If the commanders, following the orders of the commander in chief, had rules of engagement that confused the troops as to who they were supposed to shoot and who they were not allowed to shoot, caused great stress and later PTSD, the mixed signals of telling a person to kill and telling them to not protect themselves from possibly being killed were a problem. Perhaps trying to inject too much morality into a stressful position. Being formal military, I had the opportunity to speak to many who were in Vietnam. And I listened to the daily reports on the radio of what was going on in Iraq, and tried to put myself in those soldier's shoes. Damned if you accidently shot an innocent. Dead if you did not shoot the guy with the device or weapon. Warriors, made policemen, patrolling a neighborhood that had occasional residents that wanted to kill cops... Interesting argument. I think you are confused about accepting historical fact. Regards, TAR ten oz, Understood. But we are human. We react to threats. We over react to threats. That is our nature. One person gets killed by a drunk driver and we change the laws. One person gets hurt jumping off a waterfall and jumping off waterfalls is outlawed in NJ. That is why people suggest we not make a rule to change the legal status of anybody on the terrorist no fly list, as to NOT be reactionary and scared, and change the rules for everybody, because of a couple bad actors. The same argument against being reactionary can be made against the left, as is made against the right. Consider the way willie71 jumped on me for my irrational religious beliefs, because I said "Fact is the majority of us care very deeply about our beliefs" He immediately reacted and did not want to have irrational religious beliefs hurt him. He did not consider I might be an atheist and highly critical of the role some of Mohammed's (pbuh) words play in the minds of Radicalized Muslims. Regards, TAR

And silly for some to suggest I stop fighting the evil and just pay the ransom and change my policie s in the world, according to what the terrorists want, inorder to pre vent the recruitement of more terrorists.

Willie71, You don't have to convince me of evolution. I already agree. I was raised Presbyterian and schooled in schools with religious founders. I am an Atheist myself. My point was that you cannot use the words "rest of us" when talking about morality, if you at the same time discount the basis of morality upon which "the rest of us" including possibly yourself, are going. And your jumping into attack mode, against my stupid religion, when I don't even go to church, is an indication more of human propensity for hate and intolerance and false stereotyping and such than any indication that you are above such things. Regards, TAR And yes I am a pro American person. I might "spin" something differently than an anti-Zionist would spin it. But yes I support everything the U.S. has done in the last 30 years. I even support when we do stuff I would do differently myself. I can just lobby. But where I differ from anti-American propagandists is I do not see the value in any self hatred. It is like suing a company you own stock in. You are suing yourself. Where we do wrong, we root it out and fix it, according to the public opinion of the day. We put Japanese that were Americans in prison. We paid reparations to the families later. Neither act was morally bankrupt. Regards, TAR Not like ISIS. You have no basis upon which to put the U.S. and Daesh on equal moral footing. NONE. U.S. good Daesh evil black and white done deal Like Bush said at the beginning of this. This is not a war against Islam. Islam is a peaceful religion. It is a war against terror. You are either with us, or against us. If that line has been blurred in anybody's mind, in the years between, it is not of my doing. I still see the line carefully drawn. And I have been making the distinction between hating the crime and hating the criminal, then, since and still. I knew there was evil in the world when my towers came down. Big dangerous evil that needed to be met.It is still around. It still needs to be met. It is silly for you to expect me to disavow my alliegience to America inorder to defeat my sworn enemy, that is my enemy because I am American. Regards, TAR

Willie71, How many of those Muslims killed by Western forces were killed by the U.S.? How many of those Muslims were killed by Saddam or his guard which I would rather, you chalk up to ISIS than chalk up to the U.S.? And drone strikes and their ordinance, while expensive, tend to be very precise and selective in exactly who is killed. For instance killing Jihadi John could just as easily be counted as the U.S. killing a Brit, if reigniting the revolutionary war is the kind of propaganda you would wish to spread to cause hatred between Great Britain and the U.S. So what is your point? How many people of whose army did the U.S. kill in those last 30 years. Who was the commander in chief, that signed the order? Were you for or against the U.S. at the time? Give me some context on these numbers, so I can look at them reasonably. I take your statement as a talking point for some anti-American propaganda machine. I hardly take it as a statement meant to produce some thoughtful standard by which to judge morality. Regards, TAR

for illustration lets say you say you love the world, but you hate cold and heat and dampness and dryness, those darn Chinese, the North Koreans, the Russians, The French, the Brits, the Americans, the Muslims and the Jews, the Christians and the Buddists, the criminals and the drug addicts, the gays and the bankers, the Republicans and World Court, the U.N. and the ... Which part of the world is it then, that you love?

Somewhere between 220,000 and 350,000 have died since the current Syrian civil war has started, many of them Muslim. Which of those deaths do you count as Muslims killed by the U.S. and which of them do you count as Muslims killed by ISIS? Willie71, Well I think I must have missed the memo. Several people here, including yourself are using the term "we" inappropriately, if you think the majority of the people on the planet are in favor of being cured of their religion. Fact is the majority of us care very deeply about our beliefs, our principles and the rules by which our group goes. It would be, in the context of this discussion, Willie71 that is being the ideologue. Whether that ideology be physics or belief in the scientific method, or relativity or humanism or whatever, your particular ideal of how the world should be is not consistent with "the rest of us" if one of your tenants is that "the rest of us" are in error. Regards, TAR

Willie71, "The USA has killed more Muslims than Isis btw. By a long shot." Not that I don't agree with a lot of your points in 404, but Bells is seeing this pretty clearly and saying something like the USA has killed more Muslims than ISIS is not exactly the kind of statement that works against fueling us vs them mentality. I think the goal here, at least my goal and apparently Bell's goal is TO create an us versus them mentality when talking about us as moral human beings versus Daesh as the blatant and publicized face of immoral behavior, while suggesting we NOT say anything or do anything that makes this a West against Islam, or Assad against human rights, or Republican vs Democrat, or Capitalism vs Communism, or Arab against Zionist, or Feminists against Sultans, or NRA against homeland security, or whatever other very valuable fights people have to protect their way of live. America can have bigots and guns, and black lives matter folks burning cars, and boys having sex with boys, and drugs and crime on the streets, and citizens hating other citizens for their actions and stances and motivations, and have all sorts of feelings about who is the cause and what is the solution, who is the enemy, and who is "the rest of us" trying to right the wrong, AND STILL do the right thing, by defeating Daesh. Anti U.S. propaganda does not help anybody to defeat Daesh. So I would ask you cite the numbers of Muslims that the U.S. has killed in what context, and the number of Muslims that ISIS has killed in what context, so we can decide which group might hold the higher moral ground in each of our own eyes. Regards, TAR not by weight of numbers, but by the reasons such was done for instance if a mortar shell hit a market place in Bagdad during the American occupation of Bagdad, and 15 Muslims were killed, are you chalking that up to the U.S. or to ISIS? if ISIS defeats a rebel group that was armed and backed by the U.S. and uses captured weapons to kill Syrian Army soldiers and pilots and between the fight with the U.S. backed rebels and the fight with the Syrian Army 183 Muslims were killed, who gets the credit/blame for killing those 183? The U.S. or ISIS?

Ophiolite, It is hard to keep track of who is saying what in this thread, and since the Syrian civil war is at least a three sided affair, and probably a lot more sided than that, when we are talking about winners and losers, in either ideology or lives, we have to be pretty darn specific about whose side we are on, and what we are looking to achieve. Whose lives and ideology we are looking to protect, and whose lives and ideology we are looking to destroy. The Paris attacks struck terror in our hearts. Daesh brought the fight to a theatre near you. You ask the question "I ask again, in what way are the actions I listed defense against an unreasonable enemy?" So you have a point, and think perhaps something, but do not specify whether we are to concentrate on whether the actions defended us against an enemy, or whether we are supposed to concentrate on whether the enemy was unreasonable, or whether we should consider our establishing of another person as an enemy a reasonable thing, in the first place." So I read a Wiki Article on Palmyra to see what your reference was about, and what point you were making, and I was not successful in determining what point you wished to make. I read the Wiki article on the Syrian civil war, and overall see a very messed up situation, with intricate conflicts of ideologies and groups and notice more than ever that this is not a black and white issue, and remember batck a few years to the Arab spring where our country was on the side of the rebels in Arab Spring, down with the oppressive ruler, situations. Palmrya was the Syrian's trying to get the city back from the rebels. Rebels happened to be ISIL. So if we are trying to fight ISIL we should be helping Assad. It is ISIL that is destroying ancient artifacts and our history, by mining. It is ISIL that is not only talking genocide, but doing it. It is the rebels that have caused 220,000 deaths in the country. Why should we come down on the side of Arab spring, to protect our democratic values, if the result is the rise of ISIL? There are voices here, calling for dialogue with Assad. I would like to add my voice. If we screwed up by drawing a red line in the sand, against Assad, we should own up to it, and move forward, from here, on the side of Hezbollah, on the side of the Russians, on the side of the Iranians, on the side of reasonable Sunni, on the side of Syrians that want their country back. But I say this to point out that any idealogical struggles we are having at home, should not be fought out in a proxy manner in Syria, using other peoples lives to try to control an outcome we want. We cannot both fight on the side of the Arab Spring, and against ISIS. We have to make up our mind. What exactly is it, that is the most important to achieve, right now, to stabilize the area, to bring peace, to stop Daesh Terror. I am looking for reasonable responses, as to who the U.S. should be throwing its support behind, and what that support should look like. Boots on the ground, to invade Syria and yank it from Assad's control is obviously off the table. Boots on the ground to help the Syrians get their country back, might be a reversal, but might be indicated. Regards, TAR There is a good chance that reactionary impulses against Muslims AND revolutionary reactions against Assad, are BOTH undesirable at this juncture. The republicans and the democrats are doing it wrong. We should ask Assad what he would like to see us do. We should ask the French what they would like to see us do, and then, if we can find a thing to do that will establish peace in the area, protect France from ISIS, destroy Daesh and defeat that bankrupt ideology, without sacrificing the values written into our constitution, we should do that thing, and do it soon. even if it involves putting American Lives on the ground in the line of fire Against Daesh.

Ten Oz, I hold some of the same concerns as you hold Overtone, "It means you are on the wrong one. Your team is what the rest of us have to prevent from doing wrong, somehow." Who are you speaking for? I asked you about 4 times already on different threads to identify your team. The closest you come to identifying with any team is the way you speak about Iran as a natural ally. So it makes you feel good to feel superior to the people I associate with. Problem is I associate with just about everybody. I have made very few enemies in my life and when I add up all the people in this country, that I associate with, there are only a handful left for you to associate with exclusively. So please tell me who this "rest of us" is referring to. You have every right to pick your teams, but I would suggest you assemble your team with real people and not ideal people you have constructed in your head. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, And in that mass of plastic in the Pacific, if I found the remains of one shampoo bottle that you once used, would you blame yourself for the problem and lobby to clean it up, or blame me for using shampoo? There is a beautiful big Oak tree, on my neighbor's property that I was talking about to a highschool friend, who told me a story of a similar wonderful tree that was chopped down so sunlight could reach the "solar panels that were to be installed, to combat global warming." I would have lobbied for the tree. Regards, TAR Ten Oz, My point is that reasonable people, good people like you and me and others on this board, from countries all over the world, have been here for years. We have been working these issues. We are capable and trustworthy, we have good judgement. We are strong, and good and will win, because we are not afraid of Daesh. Their terror will not stand. We will meet them, and defeat them. http://oil-price.net/en/articles/making-oil-from-plastic.php I trust our collective judgement. Together we are strong. We are not debating in a vacuum, we have the streets we are talking about, right outside our doors, we have the oceans we are talking about right off our shores. Our world, our business, our collective mess to clean up, our collective wonders to enjoy, our collective story to be told. Regards, TAR That is why I ask now, "what would you lobby your government to do, to help France and defeat Daesh."

Ten Oz, We are easily conflicted. We often make our selves feel good by making the other feel bad. Establish a win by having the other person lose. Simple human motivations and feelings, that are probably helpful in survival. Reward being right. Reward winning. Religions and laws and agreements give us structure and reduce the anarchy that would result otherwise if we didn't try to keep each other, as a society, in check. We join the team so we can go by mutual rules, that need no overrt communication for understanding. We already know where and when we should let the other person win. Where their victory, becomes our victory. Easy to, however demonize the group who you are not part of. A team you have not joined, that you have not associated with, because you find their rules, suspect. I use Overtone and her hatred of the evil embodied by Voldemort to illustrate this point. If you go by a story, where there are villians and heroes, you rarely cast yourself in the villain role. You are usually the good guy and the other characters are obstructing you or fighting against you, and you need to overcome them, to win. We get conflicted when we are members of various groups, whose rules conflict. Where we lose as one flavor, when we win as the other. http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/262032-brother-of-suspected-san-bernardino-gunman-is-decorated-navy-vet Regards, TAR or this http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-other-migrant-crisis-cubans-stream-north/ar-AAg446s?ocid=spartandhp "Cuba has tens of thousands of medical professionals deployed on “missions” around the world, some taking part in humanitarian relief efforts in countries such as Haiti, and others in Brazil, Angola, Qatar and other nations that pay for their services, providing a major source of revenue to the Castro government. A U.S. program created in 2006 that offers special assistance to Cuban doctors who defect from those missions is a particular sore point for Havana, which singled it out for scorn in a statement issued Tuesday. “We must remember that the U.S. government has historically used its immigration laws as a weapon against the Revolution, enticing Cubans to leave for political purposes, which has provoked a loss of life, hijackings of boats and airplanes, violent crimes, migratory crises and brain drain,” it read. So many doctors have left — 1,000 a year, by some estimates — that staffing at Cuban hospitals and clinics has suffered. Medical professionals in Cuba typically earn less than $100 a month."

ten oz, On the first point, we handled the two shooters WITH the military equipment that the local law enforcement bought with the monies you feel would be better spent on mental health professionals. It was a mental health facility where the attack occurred, a regional center that am sure represented quite an expense, and undoubtedly does a lot of good work, but failed to help the male shooter with any mental problems he was having. Nobody noticed a problem. And he was certainly in range of mental health professionals that others could have accessed if they had a concern. Making it less easy for him and his wife to get a hold of assault style rifles though, would have helped to prevent such a thing...but his illness was ideological, and we already have spoken of the difficulty of reaching into someone's mind and making them think like you, and have already all decided that outside of following the constitution, and a few simple laws, ones own approach to life, and ones own form of worship is our personal business, not the state's. And in terms of policing, we all have a responsibility to police ourselves and concern ourselves when our neighbors are in obvious difficulty. The mayor of Chicago has indicated that a community should take responsibility for the crime in their own backyards. If you know who is doing something bad, say something. If you know your neighbor's teenage son is breaking into your car to steal money for drugs you might speak to your neighbor, or ask your local police to look into it. And any way each mass shooting we have had, has had different motivations, the only constant is the assault style weapons that are used. On the second point, I am mostly with you, except where acknowledging the entity ISIS as a state, would be silly, because it is only a state, because the criminals, took land in Syria and Iraq and said it was a state. Establishing an embassy in Raqqa, to talk with the Caliph and iron out our difficulties is not possible, since we don't recognize ISIS as a state, AND we don't negotiate with terrorists. On the third point, I think its a good theory but it does not work in practice. We can't just give our military over to be commanded by a different commander in chief. Take the time to build a coalition and ask France what she needs, but stay responsible for our own assets, and retain command of them according to the wishes of our president, not the wishes of the collective. On the last point I think you are right, but again when the rubber meets the road we are not so much being hypocritical as being conflicted in what human rights means, and we are just enacting such things as women in combat roles, and unisex bathrooms and gay marriage and such, and cannot expect that every other country be equal to ours in thier rules on the matters. Some will be ahead of us, some behind, some off in some different direction or that might just be incompatible in the rules, in which case we might just have to tolerate the difference. In the same way as a vegetarian that thinks cows are holy has to stomach seeing me buy a hamburger. Overtone, You obviously are not on any functional present team. Does not mean I am not on one. You are not joining the team until its undefeated. I will take it as a .750 squad. And my squad can help France right now, and is helping France, right now, in many ways. Regards, TAR

Just for clarity. I did not make Assad our enemy. I would have chosen to have him regain control of his own country without outside interference. The U.S. decided to draw a line in the sand, and therefore I decided to draw a line in the sand. I do not get to pick and choose the exact policies of the U.S. I have to follow the lead of my leader, whether it be Kennedy or Nixon, Carter or Reagan, Clinton or Bush. I happened to have voted for Kennedy, Carter, Reagan and Bush, and had feelings about what each of them did well and did poorly, but during the whole time, I have always been an American, and as such responsible for what friends and enemies America makes in the world. I can not, or should not ever break faith with my countrymen. I support the bikers on hogs, the marchers for racial equality, the Catholic charities, the oil exploration folk, the Sierra club, the police, Cuban refugees...everybody that is on my side. Everybody that has pledged their blood and money and honor to the U.S. is on my team. Other people will have to earn their way into my heart. Taking down my towers does not endear someone in my heart. As TAR I can only offer my opinion. As the U.S. I have a great deal of weight, and can and do influence the rules and the adherence to them. dimreeper, What is your, intelligent approach? What should we be doing, instead of what we are doing? How can we help France, after Paris? Regards, TAR actually I was in fifth grade when Kennedy was assassinated so I must have voted for him in a mock election or maybe I just loved him