Paris attacks

[Ten oz]

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.

How many tens of thousands of families won't get the opportunity to go Christmas tree shopping together next year if we do as you advocate and put our young men and women on the ground in Syria? Whether we do or do not puts our forces on the ground in Syria I think it is a safe bet you'll still be tree shopping next year. Which begs to question why it is worth doing. It won't actually change the average American's life.

[tar]

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.

Edited December 7, 2015 by tar

[Ten oz]

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

 

 

I didn't say you only care about yourself. My point was that it is easy to casual debate going to war when doing so has no real impact on your life. If putting boots on the ground in Syria meant taxes were doubled to cover the cost I bet the conversation would be very different.

 

Can you stop referencing ISIS establishing a Caliphate as though it is a serious possibility! Our choices are not invade Syria or ISIS establishes a Caliphate. Truth is Assad probably would murdered all of them already if the west hadn't stepped in a couple years ago. And if ISIS were to kill Assad Russia would bomb them into oblivion. The idea that we need boots on the ground to prevent a looming caliphate a per exaggeration on the same level of associating mushroom clouds over New York City to Saddam in the pre Iraq war debate. Whether we invaded Iraq or not Saddam wasn't going to nuke NYC just like whether we invade Syria or not the world isn't going to allow ISIS to establish a caliphate. So please drop the rhetoric. It is not useful.

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

 

We weren't told not to bring anything up; we were asked to ensure we stayed on topic. If climate change pushed millions on farmers into larger cities along with created food shortages that fueled the civil war in Syria which ISIS is directly involved in it isn't off topic to bring it up. I already provided citation which included analysis indicating climate changed is considered part of the challange in Syria.

 

You say to put boots on the ground, get rid of the bad guys, and then send the millions of refugees back all while ignoring that Syria has fodd shortages and has lost the infastructure to support its population partly do climate change. Instead you agrue that I am violenting this forums rule by pointing that out? In your opinion the cause and effect boils down to Islamic terrorist just beig bad people who want to impose a caliphate over the world. In my opinion ISIS is an example of what happeneds when populations to exist in decline. As climate change takes land, droughts out crops, and cause millions of people to migrate we will see more conflict, more acts of terror, more bad guys will be created. Perhaps if you focus less on how best to kill in Syria and instead focus on how best to grow fodd in Syria we can come up with a better long term solution. We can help eliminate one of the drivers of refugees into France.

 

"The military is bracing for a global warming crisis that will cause sea levels to rise by at least 12 to 18 inches over the next 20 to 50 years.

That will put at risk port facilities around the world, including some that are critical to the military, such as San Diego, Hawaii and Norfolk, Virginia.

Inside the U.S., more severe weather — hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires fueled by drought — will cause catastrophic damage that will likely require more frequent support from the National Guard.

Abroad, warming seas will change the face of the map, most dramatically in the Arctic, where polar ice caps are melting. That means the U.S. Navy will face new zones of competition with big rivals like China and Russia as new sea lanes emerge and new fossil fuel and mineral deposits become accessible.

In light of those developments, the Pentagon for the first time is laying out a “Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap,” which details how the U.S. military will prepare and respond to the fallout from global warming."

http://archive.navytimes.com/article/20141013/NEWS/310130043/New-report-outlines-national-security-threats-climate-change

[Willie71]

 

 

Who are the good guys again, Tar?

 

https://youtu.be/SGtegY0S3yo

Edited December 8, 2015 by Willie71

[tar]

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.

Edited December 8, 2015 by tar

[overtone]

Who are you speaking for? I asked you about 4 times already on different threads to identify your team.

You're the guy with the team, not me. You're the guy who keeps trying to divide people into "teams" you can label, and then accuses other people of being "divisive" because they don't like what you and your "team" are planning to do. Again. Having learned nothing at all from the consequences of your last little adventures in teamwork.

 

 

So it makes you feel good to feel superior to the people I associate with. Problem is I associate with just about everybody.

I don't care who you associate with. I'm talking about this team you have, that you voted for, that you are talking about setting out to "help" in France, in Syria, in Iraq, etc,

 

all to defeat militarily a pack of whackos your team's incompetence set loose on a little corner of the world in the first place,

 

and set loose by doing exactly what you are talking about doing again - setting out to "help", by bringing war.

 

 

 

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.

The 82nd Airborne was the major military force that radicalized the Sunni in Fallujah - turned an initially pro-American and peaceful, non violent, civilian city into the ruined and bombed out epicenter of the anti-American Islamic revolt against the American presence in Iraq. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah_during_the_Iraq_War

 

You don't like ISIS? The 82nd Airborne's treatment of the Iraqi people is among the three or four factors most and most directly responsible for creating ISIS.

Edited December 9, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

"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.

Edited December 9, 2015 by tar

[overtone]

Fallujah is actually worth a glance back, as that was the origin of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq that does as well as anything for the beginning of the journey whose most recent step was the Paris terrorism.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0414/p01s03-woiq.html

https://iwpr.net/global-voices/baghdadis-aid-fallujah-refugees

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-04-15/news/0404150142_1_fallujah-marines-foreign-fighters

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-conversation-with-an-isis-suicide-bomber-logistician-a-1043485.html

"SPIEGEL: How did you select the men who were to blow themselves up?

Abu Abdullah: I didn't select them. That was the duty of the military planners, who were above me in the hierarchy. The men were brought to me, most came from Fallujah. - - - - "

http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/61/Docs/Al-AnbarAwakeningVolII[1].pdf A very long account from the optimistic viewpoint of late 2009 (when the American government seemed to have regained sense and sanity). The first three or four paragraphs are enough - notice the extreme pro-American bias, btw, in the admitted "facts" (the assault on Fallujah killed far more than 70 civilians, not even counting the refugee deaths from various hardships and causes), but the situation is clear regardless.

 

 

How from this, you figure the 82nd was one of the top 4 influences that created ISIS, is beyond me.

I know. And that is why you and your team have to be prevented, if at all possible, from "helping" any more people with Muslim troubles.

 

Reread:

"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."

 

That, and Abu Ghraib, was the beginning of ISIL.

 

It was also pretty much the beginning of the spiral into chaos and ethnic cleansing and indiscriminate military assault by the US, which generated an enormous flood of refugees from Iraq - many of whom, being Sunni, found refuge and relative safety in Sunni-predominant Syria. Something in the neighborhood of one million of them. From that vantage they witnessed the American style of governance and helping people in Iraq, among their relatives in Fallujah and the Anbar province, Bagdad, etc. Many of them became "radicalized", as the term is today, by their experiences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqis_in_Syria

 

Do you have any idea, the faintest clue, why those originally pro-American civilian people were marching down to the local schoolhouse, unarmed and in family groups, to protest the soldiers quartered there? Hint: the Third Amendment to the US Constitution. The school year in Iraq. (secular schooling, btw, on the Western model, not the Islamic stuff that started up in the ruins the Americans left).

 

 

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.

That's odd. There is quite a bit of parallel between ISIL and the current Republican Party in the US. David Brooks has a column on this in the New York Times yesterday - he only mentions ISIL, but he describes them by reference to a famous book by a guy named Eric Hoffer: "The True Believer". http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/opinion/how-isis-makes-radicals.html?_r=0 And obviously he is drawing parallels with the Tea Party (which the esteemed Brooks seems to regard as a fringe or extremist group within a large body of Republican moderates, who are temporarily invisible for some reason but will appear any moment now and set the ship to rights).

 

More quotes from Hoffer:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eric_Hoffer

Edited December 9, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

"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?

Edited December 9, 2015 by tar

[Ten oz]

"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

Values within a society change. Our "Christian values" use to included owning slaves and giving diseased blankets to natives. The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter day Saints use to practice Poligamy and have racist bylaws. The current Pope says not to judge gays after centuries of Catholics judging gays. Your view of fundamental Muslim value ignores the fundemental fact that things change. I am far less religious than my parent and parents are far less religious today than they were 30yrs ago. People change, generantions, everything is fluid. The constitution inables us to make choices it does not provide a guideline for what those choices have to be.

[tar]

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.

[iNow]

https://mobile.twitter.com/cjwerleman/status/673985855560663040

 

CJ Werleman – ‏@cjwerleman

 

You see how one terrorist shooting can radicalize Americans like Trump, but you can't see how 10,000+ US bombs might radicalize Muslims?

 

[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.

Edited December 9, 2015 by tar

[overtone]

I did not read the long account you posted, - - - .

Imagine my surprise.

 

But you replied with opinions about it and questions already handled therein. Maybe you should read it first - just a suggestion.

 

 

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?

Read the pdf by the Marine Corps historian?

 

The Tea Party denial of physical reality as "bias" is becoming their best known characteristic. The real world is a difficult place for the people who voted for W&Cheney, true, but this is getting ridiculous.

 

They came to protest the occupation of their school and the mistreatment of their children. That's why they marched down the street, past the Baath building troop station, to the school where their children were supposed to be in class and they had been promised no soldiers would quartered. That's in the long account you didn't read - the part that mentioned the Third Amendment to the US Constitution, among the freedoms that the 82nd Airborne claimed to be bringing.

 

People don't generally "besiege" armed and fortified and famously violent soldiers by marching and gathering in the street in front of them, without weapons.

 

 

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

Any idea why? Any, like, mild curiosity about those contractors, the angry crowd in the middle of the formerly peaceful city, what led to one of the most pro-American and non-violent cities in all of Iraq turning into the roots of Daesh within a few weeks of having the 82nd Airborne in their neighborhood?

 

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

You have your timeline confused. AQ, and then ISIL, created that guy, not the other way around.

 

The 82nd Airborne in Fallujah, and a couple of other US operations (setting up Abu Ghraib and associated "interrogation" procedures, disbanding all civilian authority without undertaking security, kicking in people's doors and putting guns in their faces from day one, etc) largely created ISIL - including that guy, most of his recruits, etc.

 

Of course the sectarian hostility of centuries was there to explode - but it had been for decades, in every country in the area including Iraq, without exploding. The US policy was to deny its existence - the administrators and governors W&Cheney sent to oversee Iraq after the invasion said it didn't exist, and acted accordingly.

 

One thing I remember - and others may too, thinking back: I remember the people who voted for Ronald Reagan making fun of Jimmy Carter for being careful to distinguish between Sunni and Shia muslims, denigrating his careful and diplomatic language, laughing at his consideration for the sectarian realities of the region, despising his supposed "weakness".

 

That was then, this is now, - - "I wish that could happen soon to get rid of the Daesh nightmare, - - -

"Now", the nightmare, is largely the fault of you and your team. You won't even admit what you've done. But you want other Americans to allow you to keep doing it, using the American flag and the American military.

Edited December 9, 2015 by overtone

[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

Edited December 9, 2015 by tar

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

This isn't only about the ease of getting a hold of an assault weapon. That is obvious to figure, that less assault weapons on the street would, reduce mass killings. You don't need weapons of war on the street in peacetime. That has nothing to do with the Paris attacks however.

 

The wife radicalized the husband. She sewed the hatred. Not some former gang member neo Nazi in southern California. She pledged allegiance to the Caliph on facebook during the shooting. the major news outlets are reporting that he had traveled to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan with her and one or the other or both may have been radicalized there.

 

So internally if we have a problem with gangs and drugs and guns in the city we fight that crime in the city, if we have problems with gangs and drugs and neo Nazis in the suburbs, we fight that in the suburbs, if we have problems with a caliph urging people to kill infidels, we fight the Caliph, where ever he is. If he has called a Jihad on me, I call an APB on him. WANTED. Dead or alive.

 

What does wanting to see criminals behind bars have to do with hate. It is the desire to take the hate off the street that causes me to want to kill or capture the leadership of ISIS. If the recruiters are dead, the recruits would have nobody to please.

 

Besides mass murders in this country are carried out by unstable people with grudges. Stable people with guns usually stop such threats or the person takes their own life.

 

Measures to keep assault weapons out of the hands of unstable people are 100% indicated. Measures to take guns in general out of our hands runs into other nuanced issues that have only tangential relationship to the Paris Attacks.

 

The problem that everyone agrees on is ISIS. How to fight them is my question. And such I think is a better thing to concentrate on, in a thread about the terrorist attacks in Paris than gun control in the U.S. which has its own threads.

 

Regards, TAR

“He has admitted that he and the deceased were planning to do an attack in 2012, and that they abandoned that because there had been some arrests immediately adjacent to that right in their area, in southern California probably by the counter terrorism people that really caused them to rethink it,” Risch, R-Idaho, told ABC News, echoing comments he made on CNN. “So they abandoned that and did not pursue that event.” Risch, who sits on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said the plan was “very general.”

https://gma.yahoo.com/senator-san-bernardino-shooters-neighbor-admitted-2012-plot-225151424--abc-news-topstories.html

 

So Syed Farook planned an attack in 2012. That is before he met his wife and before ISIS was the house hold name it is today. Before ISIS claimed areas in Levant. Before Syed travel to Pakistan and Suadi Arabia. This new bit of evidence not only proves information you have stated wrong but it also strengthens the arguments made by others that boots on the ground in Syria will not prevent the Syed Farook's of the world. Can you at least admit that to advocating an exaggerated understanding of the role ISIS played in the San Bernardino shootings? That perhaps you are overestimating what influence ISIS has and what the true nature of differences are between mass shootings.

 

[tar]

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

Edited December 10, 2015 by 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?

 

If we have accrued a good name or a bad name in the world, we all have had a hand in it.

1) I'm an American. It's my responsibility to do my best to deal with the consequences of my government's behavior. That's my accountability. I'm doing that, by - for starters - doing what I can to get a leash on your team, curb its plans, prevent it from making things even worse than it already has.

 

2) It's not equal to yours, because I'm not equally to blame. I voted against every politician I could that was responsible for all that horrible stuff you guys did, I sent money to opposition folks, I wrote letters, ran my mouth, took a lot of shit from your team for years. And I'm damned if I'm going to listen to you try pass off what you guys did on everybody who was working so hard to stop you from doing it, without pointing out the obvious: it wasn't their fault.

 

You and your "team" did very bad things. You caused this mess we're in. You got us into this. You were told, in advance, by people who knew better, that you should not do those things, that horrible consequences would follow. The people who tried to stop you, and are now trying to handle the disaster you created, are not to blame. They did their best to stop you, and failed. Now they are trying to help you clean up your mess. The first order of business is to prevent your team from making things worse.

 

We did not "cause" terrorism, because the 82nd airborne misread a crowd of Baathists.

Fallujah was one of the friendliest, most pro-American cities in Iraq, immediately after the invasion. It had an elected, pro-American mayor. It had an educated professional class, decent schools, women on the streets without headscarves. There was essentially no military presence in it, almost no looting, little violence, competent civilian authority. https://articlesfactsstats.wordpress.com/the-iraq-war-fallujah-before-and-after/ Within three months of the 82nd Airborne setting up camp in that oasis of calm the current Sunni jihadist terrorism campaign had begun in Fallujah, leading within less than a year to a full scale insurgency dedicated to driving the Americans and any other Westerners out of their country at any cost. The current incarnation of that is called ISIL.

 

At least in part, a large part, ISIL originated as a reaction to the experiences of the Iraqi people with the 82nd Airborne in Fallujah. Although the 3rd Cavalry and 3rd Infantry blew on the spark, apparently.

 

So take a look at ISIL: that's what happened the last time your team set out to help people by bringing in the US military. Or look at this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

 

The line from that to the Paris attacks is direct - they appear to be consequences of the US invasion of Iraq, and the mistreatment of Fallujah in particular.

Edited December 10, 2015 by overtone

[Ten oz]

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

3 years ago and it shows that Jihadi John, ISIS, and the Paris attacks may be about as responsible for Syed Farook's actions as the Batman movie was for James Holmes in Aurora. Have you read up on Enrique Marquez, the man who purchased the guns used by the Farook's?

 

"A 24-year-old Wal-Mart security guard, known to friends as a shy cycling enthusiast who wanted to join the military, has emerged as a key figure in last week's terror attack at a San Bernardino social services center.

 

Enrique Marquez Jr. purchased two military-style rifles several years ago that Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik used in the attack that killed 14 people at the Inland Regional Center, according to federal authorities.

 

Marquez has cooperated with FBI agents, who have been interviewing him in recent days, according to a law enforcement source speaking on the condition of anonymity. He purchased the weapons in 2011 or 2012, around the time Farook is believed to have begun considering carrying out a terrorist attack in the U.S., according to a federal government official who also spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing."

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-85278241/

 

This whole thing was brewing for a few years and is not unlike the many domestically inspired mass shootings. It is something that boots on the ground in Syria doesn't keep us safe from. Niether Farook or Marquez had any type of criminal past. Perhaps if the assualt weapons ban from the 90's had still been in place they would have been caught illegally obtaining weapons years ago and been investigated then or perhaps they would have just legally purchase less lethal guns and fewer people would have died when they finally snapped. In my opinion that is at least as worth considering as is invaded a country based on their actions. We have to stop taking the actions of Muslims, putting them into their own category, calling it terrorism, and then pretending that terrorism is purely a foriegn policy issue. In the case of San Bernardino both the trigger man and the man who purchased the guns were born and rasied right here in the U.S. of A.

[tar]

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.

Edited December 10, 2015 by tar

[dimreepr]

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]"

 

 

Really? We’re down to knives for the average mental patient.

Tar, you seem to epitomise the revenge culture, your culture so wants to be true; real life is not like ‘Star Wars’ it’s no fairy tale, there is no good and evil, it’s just us ‘humans’ with varying degrees of baggage; life is ‘Dante’s Inferno’ not ‘Cinderella’.

[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.

[dimreepr]

You only look bad if you ignore ‘world opinion’ in favour of personal bias.

[DimaMazin]

 

 

1) I'm an American. It's my responsibility to do my best to deal with the consequences of my government's behavior. That's my accountability. I'm doing that, by - for starters - doing what I can to get a leash on your team, curb its plans, prevent it from making things even worse than it already has.

 

2) It's not equal to yours, because I'm not equally to blame. I voted against every politician I could that was responsible for all that horrible stuff you guys did, I sent money to opposition folks, I wrote letters, ran my mouth, took a lot of shit from your team for years. And I'm damned if I'm going to listen to you try pass off what you guys did on everybody who was working so hard to stop you from doing it, without pointing out the obvious: it wasn't their fault.

 

You and your "team" did very bad things. You caused this mess we're in. You got us into this. You were told, in advance, by people who knew better, that you should not do those things, that horrible consequences would follow. The people who tried to stop you, and are now trying to handle the disaster you created, are not to blame. They did their best to stop you, and failed. Now they are trying to help you clean up your mess. The first order of business is to prevent your team from making things worse.

 

 

Fallujah was one of the friendliest, most pro-American cities in Iraq, immediately after the invasion. It had an elected, pro-American mayor. It had an educated professional class, decent schools, women on the streets without headscarves. There was essentially no military presence in it, almost no looting, little violence, competent civilian authority. https://articlesfactsstats.wordpress.com/the-iraq-war-fallujah-before-and-after/ Within three months of the 82nd Airborne setting up camp in that oasis of calm the current Sunni jihadist terrorism campaign had begun in Fallujah, leading within less than a year to a full scale insurgency dedicated to driving the Americans and any other Westerners out of their country at any cost. The current incarnation of that is called ISIL.

 

At least in part, a large part, ISIL originated as a reaction to the experiences of the Iraqi people with the 82nd Airborne in Fallujah. Although the 3rd Cavalry and 3rd Infantry blew on the spark, apparently.

 

So take a look at ISIL: that's what happened the last time your team set out to help people by bringing in the US military. Or look at this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

 

The line from that to the Paris attacks is direct - they appear to be consequences of the US invasion of Iraq, and the mistreatment of Fallujah in particular.

I was supporting the war in Irak. Now I think it was useful. I didn't pay money, but USA made the war for me too, I think for your money.

You only look bad if you ignore ‘world opinion’ in favour of personal bias.

My opinion is 'world opinion' also.

[tar]

dimreeper,

 

Sandy Hook was evil..

 

9/11 was evil.

 

Sandy Hook was a guy with baggage, but he did a very evil act. There is a reaction in our country against guns, and bullies, but the guy was evil...pure evil. We can't kill him,or put him in jail, so we strike out at guns and bullies so that people like him can not easily kill innocents. We fight against bullies so that we don't create another evil guy that is mad at his 2nd grade classmates.

 

9/11 was a guy with baggage, but he did a very evil act. There is a reaction in our county against terrorists, and greedy oil barons, so that we don't get blown up in the café. But we know this evil doer is still alive. We can go after his command and control, chase him down, and put him out of business. He has been waiting to get us since Israel appeared on the Map.

 

We cannot become communists or Muslim, inorder to placate them. Capitalists and Zionists are only bullies to communists and Muslims. To Capitalists and Zionists, capitalists and Zionists are just fine.