Shortforbob

Immediate withdrawal from Syria

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mark K said:

What is stunning to me is the utter competence of Putin and Lavrov in all this. It's a bit mind-boggling to picture anyone imagining an orchestrating this sudden US rug-yanking from under the Kurds. Lots of moving parts here. They had to have confidence in exactly what Erdo would and wouldn't do, Trump, Assad, even the Iraqis The risks appear huge. I suspect Putin was prompted by the deep unpopularity of the cost of supporting Syria within Russia, and while Putin's popularity remains very high it's not invulnerable to erosion. They must have viewed complete stabilization, regardless of the nature of that stabilization, as very important prior to getting the eff out of there.  

  Putin is guiding our FP in this area, and for the locals that might be for the best. We are currently like children compared to them.  Still dreaming of overturning Assad at this stage, as our neocons and Jacobin libereal interventionists are??  Damn silly.  

Wasn't Putin guiding our foreign policy when we went in?  That was FUCKING STUPID!

Do you ever wonder how an East German student ended up as chancellor of Germany and how that cosy alliance with Russia came about?  Seems almost magical.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Wasn't Putin guiding our foreign policy when we went in?  That was FUCKING STUPID!

Do you ever wonder how an East German student ended up as chancellor of Germany and how that cosy alliance with Russia came about?  Seems almost magical.

 

Have you forgotten about ISIL? Or are you saying it was FUCKING STUPID to help fight ISIL? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mark K said:

Have you forgotten about ISIL? Or are you saying it was FUCKING STUPID to help fight ISIL? 

No, it was FUCKING STUPID to enter Syria.  Groups like ISIL just fade away and reform with a new name in a new location.  Have you forgotten Al Qaeda?

Chasing groups around like that is pointless.  We are a greater threat to stability than they are unless you are fighting to install our form of government everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

No, it was FUCKING STUPID to enter Syria.  Groups like ISIL just fade away and reform with a new name in a new location.  Have you forgotten Al Qaeda?

Chasing groups around like that is pointless.  We are a greater threat to stability than they are unless you are fighting to install our form of government everywhere.

I think the Iraqis and the Kurds might beg to differ on that, but am pretty sure the Yazidies will. Along with any Christians, Jews, Shiites, and Zoroastrians in the area.

 I suppose that the Nazis would have melted away too at some point though.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mark K said:

I think the Iraqis and the Kurds might beg to differ on that, but am pretty sure the Yazidies will. Along with any Christians, Jews, Shiites, and Zoroastrians in the area.

 I suppose that the Nazis would have melted away too at some point though.

 

 

It’s not like they were taking territory, including territory that yielded The Precious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mark K said:

It's a bit mind-boggling to picture anyone imagining an orchestrating this sudden US rug-yanking from under the Kurds.

It would have been funny if this thread had been titled "Sudden Withdrawal from Syria" ten months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:
Quote

 

“I want to get out of the endless wars, too. The problem is, the other side, even if we wanted to surrender, will not take our surrender. They hate us because of who we are, the way we live our lives, the way we worship our God,” Kelly said Saturday at a political conference hosted by the Washington Examiner.

“What was working in Syria was that for very little investment, the Kurds were doing all the fighting, the vast majority of the dying, and we were providing intelligence and fire support assistance. And we were winning,” added the retired four-star Marine general.

 

I wonder what we were winning and what the catastrophe will look like?

I think we were incubating Al Queda D'ouche ISIL ISIS by supporting mass imprisonment of women and kids in concentration camps through our proxies, not defeating them. They might care less about how we live our lives than about how our proxies abused them, assuming they agree that putting women and kids in concentration camps is sometimes bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

I think the Iraqis and the Kurds might beg to differ on that, but am pretty sure the Yazidies will. Along with any Christians, Jews, Shiites, and Zoroastrians in the area.

 I suppose that the Nazis would have melted away too at some point though.

 

 

The Nazi's  had nowhere else to go and no zealots to provide new recruits.

They were a nation, not a movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

The Nazi's  had nowhere else to go and no zealots to provide new recruits.

They were a nation, not a movement.

The Nazis were... and still are... a political party, you jackass

The nation that was unfortunate enough to be led by them suffered catastrophically

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saorsa said:

The Nazi's  had nowhere else to go and no zealots to provide new recruits.

They were a nation, not a movement.

Wha?? Nationalist Socialist party. or in German.. Nationalsozialistische .NAZI 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The Nazis were... and still are... a political party, you jackass

The nation that was unfortunate enough to be led by them suffered catastrophically

- DSK

A WILLLING nation.  Just like Trump's base, the majority of Germans SUPPORTED National Socialism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The Nazis were... and still are... a political party, you jackass

The nation that was unfortunate enough to be led by them suffered catastrophically

- DSK

But, they controlled a country, it's government and it's resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Saorsa said:
11 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The Nazis were... and still are... a political party, you jackass

The nation that was unfortunate enough to be led by them suffered catastrophically

 

But, they controlled a country, it's government and it's resources.

Indeed they did. Very good, I see you've been studying!

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Indeed they did. Very good, I see you've been studying!

- DSK

And at that point, the country becomes the instrument of the party.  Look to the communiis states.

You could still attack them on the basis of their boundaries.  The likes of Al Qaeda and ISIL, ISIS, Daesh, whatever are not dependent on boundaries.  Our foreign policy should be directed to the states that harbor them.  Sending in US troops to get rid of Assad or Hussein did nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:
12 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The Nazis were... and still are... a political party, you jackass

The nation that was unfortunate enough to be led by them suffered catastrophically

 

But, they controlled a country, it's government and it's resources.

Indeed they did. Very good, I see you've been studying! 

3 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

 

And at that point, the country becomes the instrument of the party.  Look to the communiis states.

You could still attack them on the basis of their boundaries.  ....     ...    ... 

 

Uh huh.

And what seperation, in strategy and tactics, in used to distinguish between a party and the country or territory or population they control?

By relatively smart people, I mean. This is an open-book question, do more studying until you have an answer you're comfy with.

6 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

...   ...   ...

You could still attack them on the basis of their boundaries.  The likes of Al Qaeda and ISIL, ISIS, Daesh, whatever are not dependent on boundaries.  Our foreign policy should be directed to the states that harbor them.  Sending in US troops to get rid of Assad or Hussein did nothing. 

Oh yeah? NOTHING??

How do you feel about President Trump's great accomplishment assassinating ISIS leader al-Bagdadi?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

A WILLLING nation.  Just like Trump's base, the majority of Germans SUPPORTED National Socialism.

I'm not sure if a majority ever supported the Nazi party as much as the rightwing & Nazis manipulated things so the Nazis would get a majority of votes early on and people mostly acquiesced until it was far too late - after 1933 there were no meaningful elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It goes to a basic assumption or orientation; do you look at power structures top down or bottom up? That's the fundamental division in the US reaching into religion, economics and sociology and colours the way someone looks at the world. In the case of National Socialism, they had at least the acquiescence, the tacit support, of the majority of the population just as segregation did here.  There were far more supporters of segregation in '48 than registered as Dixicrats, so to there were far more supporters of National Socialism (at least until they started losing) than joined the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Saorsa said:

The Nazi's  had nowhere else to go and no zealots to provide new recruits.

They were a nation, not a movement.

The Nazis weren't zealots? They had no new zealots? Check out some of their best divisions, the Walloon, Nordland, Wiking,  and there were about a dozen others. To this day we have people sporting SS tats.  

 "Nazi" don't sound like any nation I've ever heard of. They speak English in Nazi? 

1qujw7.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

The Nazis weren't zealots? They had no new zealots? Check out some of their best divisions, the Walloon, Nordland, Wiking,  and there were about a dozen others. To this day we have people sporting SS tats.  

 "Nazi" don't sound like any nation I've ever heard of. They speak English in Nazi? 

1qujw7.jpg

they started as terrorists.  It worked and they got a country out of it with armies and air forces and stuff.  Then it didn't work and Argentina didn't support the terrorism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Uh huh.

And what seperation, in strategy and tactics, in used to distinguish between a party and the country or territory or population they control?

By relatively smart people, I mean. This is an open-book question, do more studying until you have an answer you're comfy with.

Oh yeah? NOTHING??

How do you feel about President Trump's great accomplishment assassinating ISIS leader al-Bagdadi?

- DSK

I think it was inspirational. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mark K said:

The Nazis weren't zealots? They had no new zealots? Check out some of their best divisions, the Walloon, Nordland, Wiking,  and there were about a dozen others. To this day we have people sporting SS tats.  

 "Nazi" don't sound like any nation I've ever heard of. They speak English in Nazi? 

 

I didn't say the Nazi's weren't zealots.  I said " no zealots to provide new recruits ".  By that I meant that there were no NEW zealots being created to be recruited to the cause.  Once the Nazi's were the state the result was compulsion.  Faith was no longer required when mere obedience was adequate.

This is not the case today.  The Muslim Brotherhood is active throughout MENA and is based on an interesting premise.

"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

They are creating new zealots to follow their cause daily.  Their history in Egypt is interesting.

Of course, they now claim to have given up violence but their legacy lives on in most if not all of the radical islamists bolstered by those of Islam who lack that faith but give their obedience.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

I didn't say the Nazi's weren't zealots.  I said " no zealots to provide new recruits ".  By that I meant that there were no NEW zealots being created to be recruited to the cause.  Once the Nazi's were the state the result was compulsion.  Faith was no longer required when mere obedience was adequate.

This is not the case today.  The Muslim Brotherhood is active throughout MENA and is based on an interesting premise.

"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

They are creating new zealots to follow their cause daily.  Their history in Egypt is interesting.

Of course, they now claim to have given up violence but their legacy lives on in most if not all of the radical islamists bolstered by those of Islam who lack that faith but give their obedience.

 

Praise Jesus that we're not like them......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

How do you feel about President Trump's great accomplishment assassinating ISIS leader al-Bagdadi?

I think if they could suddenly whip that rabbit out of their hat then they've probably been sitting on it for months. Happy to let Syrians continue dying until it was politically convenient to knock him off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Our foreign policy should be directed to the states that harbor them (ISIS).  Sending in US troops to get rid of Assad or Hussein did nothing.

You do realize you are contradicting yourself here from one sentence to the next, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At what point are we going to recognize that what we doing is not working to get rid of terrorism? Every door we kick, every bomb we drop puts more people on the road to radicalization. With the exceptions of the Native Americans and the Phillipines, where we were willing to be genocidal, we have failed at stopping these types of insurgency militarily (addressing them as a law enforcement problem has been more effective) because our very actions great the destabilizing social events that make individuals more easily flipped. Even the British had to negotiate with the IRA to stop the fighting, why are we so dense we can't identify failure when we've seen it for 50 years?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You do realize you are contradicting yourself here from one sentence to the next, right?

No. 

I don't consider foreign policy as limited to military attacks on governments.  Changing the head of a state does not change the people or the culture.  It usually just creates a new guy we need to prop up for decades or die trying.

Our enemy is not a particular state or it's leader.  You could eliminate the house of Saud and Wahhabism would still control the region.  We changed governments in Afghanistan but we did not eliminate the Taliban and now they're back. 

Right now, Saudi Arabia and Iran are in conflict.  One Sunni, one Shia.  It doesn't matter which one wins.  Both want the spread of Islam throughout the world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Both want the spread of Islam throughout the world."

And how is the different, in intent and impact" from wanting to spread Christianity throughout the world?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, learningJ24 said:

At what point are we going to recognize that what we doing is not working to get rid of terrorism? Every door we kick, every bomb we drop puts more people on the road to radicalization. With the exceptions of the Native Americans and the Phillipines, where we were willing to be genocidal, we have failed at stopping these types of insurgency militarily (addressing them as a law enforcement problem has been more effective) because our very actions great the destabilizing social events that make individuals more easily flipped. Even the British had to negotiate with the IRA to stop the fighting, why are we so dense we can't identify failure when we've seen it for 50 years?

Maybe we should reconsider the whole genocidal thing.....  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You do realize you are contradicting yourself here from one sentence to the next, right?

No. 

I don't consider foreign policy as limited to military attacks on governments.  Changing the head of a state does not change the people or the culture.  It usually just creates a new guy we need to prop up for decades or die trying.

Our enemy is not a particular state or it's leader.  You could eliminate the house of Saud and Wahhabism would still control the region.  We changed governments in Afghanistan but we did not eliminate the Taliban and now they're back. 

Right now, Saudi Arabia and Iran are in conflict.  One Sunni, one Shia.  It doesn't matter which one wins.  Both want the spread of Islam throughout the world.

You said:  

Quote

Our foreign policy should be directed to the states that harbor them (ISIS).  Sending in US troops to get rid of Assad or Hussein did nothing.

So what happens when diplomacy fails, sanctions fail, etc and the terrorists are still being harbored by a particular state?  Who do you direct the remaining bits of FP left at your disposal at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You said:  

So what happens when diplomacy fails, sanctions fail, etc and the terrorists are still being harbored by a particular state?  Who do you direct the remaining bits of FP left at your disposal at?

Nobody has said that military action is NEVER appropriate but military action has NEVER eliminated a tactic (terrorism) or an idea (Communism/Fascism), the point is assuming these people are nothing more than the tactic they use. It would be like using amputation to address mental illness (a real theory/practice), causes lots of pain and doesn't help the issue. The issues that drive people to support terrorism in support of X are what need to be addressed if a cure is wanted. Otherwise it's just a profitable game of whack a mole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You said:  

So what happens when diplomacy fails, sanctions fail, etc and the terrorists are still being harbored by a particular state?  Who do you direct the remaining bits of FP left at your disposal at?

Qatar

https://gulfnews.com/world/gulf/qatar/how-qatar-funds-muslim-brotherhood-expansion-in-europe-1.63386835

Beirut: Ninety per cent of Qatari funds to the EU were channeled to Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated projects, two French authors have confirmed, supporting claims made since the summer of 2017 by Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

...

“The Muslim Brotherhood philosophy is to encompass people’s lives from birth to death. All of the Qatar-financed projects tried to do just that, surrounding mosques with schools, swimming pools, restaurants, and even morgues.”

“When we spoke with people administering these centers, they would say: ‘We are not members of the Brotherhood. All of our funding is 100 per cent legal.”

“Yet, when we entered the libraries of these mosques and schools, we found the books of Shaikh Yousuf Al Qaradawi (the Doha-based Egyptian mentor of the Brotherhood). His books were everywhere, and so were those of Sayyid Qutob (one of the historic leaders of the Egyptian Brotherhood).”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

"Both want the spread of Islam throughout the world."

And how is the different, in intent and impact" from wanting to spread Christianity throughout the world?

 

Because the evangelicals who are spreading Christianity aren't using violent Jihad to force conversion, perhaps? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Because the evangelicals who are spreading Christianity aren't using violent Jihad to force conversion, perhaps? 

Oh sure they are.  Just ask any of the Jesus-haters here - Christianity is the bane of modern man.

Oh and to pick nits.... there is no real such thing as "conversion" to islam.  They feel that EVERYONE on the planet is born into Islam.  Those that don't actively embrace the faith are just misguided.  Those that finally wake up and join islam later on are just "reverting" back to their natural state.  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what do y'all mean "fight terrorism"?  The US CREATES terrorism, at times purposefully - like Alpha 66 or the MEK in Iran or the Contra 

And don't forget where ISIS came from - the sowing of dragons' teeth 

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/10/28/us-militarism-having-provoked-isil-being-kills-cult-leader-baghdadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Because the evangelicals who are spreading Christianity aren't using violent Jihad to force conversion, perhaps? 

Not now but looking at the whole of the the history of Christianity it's difficult to conclude they DIDN'T use violence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, learningJ24 said:

Not now but looking at the whole of the the history of Christianity it's difficult to conclude they DIDN'T use violence. 

No argument - but now's what counts, isn't it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
3 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

Not now but looking at the whole of the the history of Christianity it's difficult to conclude they DIDN'T use violence. 

No argument - but now's what counts, isn't it? 

Now that they are restrained by secular governments? Yeah, exactly

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Oh sure they are.  Just ask any of the Jesus-haters here - Christianity is the bane of modern man.

Oh and to pick nits.... there is no real such thing as "conversion" to islam.  They feel that EVERYONE on the planet is born into Islam.  Those that don't actively embrace the faith are just misguided.  Those that finally wake up and join islam later on are just "reverting" back to their natural state.  Just saying.

 

The Japanese feel the same way about Shinto. But they don't actively seek converts, they're just smug about how it makes them superior to recognize the actual spiritual plane of existence instead of all the childish made-up shit of every other religion.

As for hating Christianity, that's ridiculous.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No argument - but now's what counts, isn't it? 

The past indicates possible futures, I don't think the mindsets go away because a calendar page has flipped. It's probable that the intolerance that fostered the violence is a part of what's pushing intolerance today. Islam carries with it the same fundamental intolerance that Christianity has, "There's only one God and he's mine!".  An example on the Christian side would be the Christian Identity groups killing doctors who perform abortions, religious killings to inspire conformity to The Truth. That said, without looking into it, I suspect Islam get far more converts from peaceful persuasion than violence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/10/27/trump-baghdadi-raid.html

Trump’s abrupt and unplanned decision to withdraw from Northern Syria almost wrecked months of planning and ruined the Baghdadi raid.

Armed with that initial tip, the C.I.A. worked closely with Iraqi and Kurdish intelligence officials in Iraq and Syria to identify Mr. al-Baghdadi’s more precise whereabouts and to put spies in place to monitor his periodic movements, allowing American commandos to stage an assault Saturday in which President Trump said Mr. al-Baghdadi died.

But Mr. Trump’s abrupt decision to withdraw American forces from northern Syria disrupted the meticulous planning and forced Pentagon officials to press ahead with a risky, night raid before their ability to control troops and spies and reconnaissance aircraft disappeared, according to military, intelligence and counterterrorism officials. Mr. al-Baghdadi’s death, they said, occurred largely in spite of Mr. Trump’s actions.

Trump racist chinese

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't it only last week that Trump didn't want to strain the desert with US troops blood , to protect people lives ,

But it's OK to send troops in to protect the profits of Exxon Oil.

the man is such a scum bag ( to use his on words) guess he was looking in a mirror

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/27/trump-wants-to-make-a-deal-with-exxon-or-others-to-tap-syrian-oil.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, learningJ24 said:

The past indicates possible futures, I don't think the mindsets go away because a calendar page has flipped. It's probable that the intolerance that fostered the violence is a part of what's pushing intolerance today. Islam carries with it the same fundamental intolerance that Christianity has, "There's only one God and he's mine!".  An example on the Christian side would be the Christian Identity groups killing doctors who perform abortions, religious killings to inspire conformity to The Truth. That said, without looking into it, I suspect Islam get far more converts from peaceful persuasion than violence. 

So are you suggesting that "Islam is peace, and Christianity is evil"?   Or is this comment coming from a perspective that if a few nuts use religion to justify their actions, that all religion deserves condemnation?   

To the bolded part?  You don't think that attitudes have changed in Christianity since the Crusades?  Please clarify your intent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, garuda3 said:

Wasn't it only last week that Trump didn't want to strain the desert with US troops blood , to protect people lives ,

But it's OK to send troops in to protect the profits of Exxon Oil.

the man is such a scum bag ( to use his on words) guess he was looking in a mirror

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/27/trump-wants-to-make-a-deal-with-exxon-or-others-to-tap-syrian-oil.html

I like the question "what international law enables the US to lay claim to Syrian oil"

My guess is that Exxon, et al, will run away from this "deal"

Maybe Trump can get Gazprom interested.

What a fucktard of a mess he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So are you suggesting that "Islam is peace, and Christianity is evil"?   Or is this comment coming from a perspective that if a few nuts use religion to justify their actions, that all religion deserves condemnation?   

To the bolded part?  You don't think that attitudes have changed in Christianity since the Crusades?  Please clarify your intent. 

Have they? Most of the recent white-terror attacks are done with the attacker claiming God on his side. Is it still institutional? No matter what the Catholics do to control it, child rape in the name of God is still holy. You've got preachers going on and on about killing the treasonous democrats if they don't support Trump.

I dunno man, maybe your little corner of the world is all enlightened and shit, but it seems there's plenty barbarism in Christ's name left to go around. 

And no, that is not a comparison to any other religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some data for ya:

image.thumb.png.384e974d6de93b56f34f804108e4980c.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

Have they? Most of the recent white-terror attacks are done with the attacker claiming God on his side. Is it still institutional? No matter what the Catholics do to control it, child rape in the name of God is still holy. You've got preachers going on and on about killing the treasonous democrats if they don't support Trump.

 I dunno man, maybe your little corner of the world is all enlightened and shit, but it seems there's plenty barbarism in Christ's name left to go around. 

And no, that is not a comparison to any other religion.

Again I'll ask - do you think that anything in contemporary christian preaching is compelling people to commit these acts,  or are there a few lunatics like the WBC kooks who've decided on their own to make a stand and are twisting scripture in an attempt to legitimize their behavior?   

There IS a difference - and that you continue to harp on Christianity while excusing radical Islam really points to the fact that you are simply another person who's intolerant of everyone who doesn't share your ideas and priorities.   Your comment w/r/t kids is wholly offensive and wrong - nobody excuses or condones that behavior, and the Catholic church has indeed done a great wrong to all of the victims by trying to keep such incidents quiet in their attempts to handle the situation in house.   That in no way comports to your assertion that such behavior is "holy"-  that is patently offensive, even for you.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Saorsa said:

they started as terrorists.  It worked and they got a country out of it with armies and air forces and stuff.  Then it didn't work and Argentina didn't support the terrorism.

 

:lol: it's amazing how much stupid you can pack into one post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets not forget about the Cursades , going back to the 11th century.

The Crusades were organized by western European Christians after centuries of Muslim wars of expansion. Their primary objectives were to stop the expansion of Muslim states, to reclaim for Christianity the Holy Land in the Middle East, and to recapture territories that had formerly been Christian.
 
Tens of thousands of people (both soldiers and civilians) were killed in the conquest of Jerusalem. The Crusaders themselves suffered; historians estimate that only one in 20 survived to even reach the Holy Land. It is estimated that 1.7 million people died in total

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christians all over the world are still, TODAY, converting indigenous people, destroying their languages and cultures, raping little kids and adults, and trying to bring their version of Sharia Law (hate gays, kill everybody but fetuses, etc) to dozens of countries, including the USA.

Maybe after they stop and apologize and show they have gotten rid of all the bad actors, they can be allowed to participate in society?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Christians all over the world are still, TODAY, converting indigenous people, destroying their languages and cultures, raping little kids and adults, and trying to bring their version of Sharia Law (hate gays, kill everybody but fetuses, etc) to dozens of countries, including the USA.

 Maybe after they stop and apologize and show they have gotten rid of all the bad actors, they can be allowed to participate in society?

Who should apologize for what, Clean?  How does your approval for their participation in society manifest itself?   

In this? you're doing exactly what you decry in other situations, and condemning the whole for the actions of a few individuals.   You wanta talk about welfare queens, hood rats, and trailer park thugs next?  How 'bout Jewish accountants?  Any other stereotype you want to trot out as a sash of shame that needs to be worn by everyone sharing a demographic? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Who should apologize for what, Clean?  How does your approval for their participation in society manifest itself?   

In this? you're doing exactly what you decry in other situations, and condemning the whole for the actions of a few individuals.   You wanta talk about welfare queens, hood rats, and trailer park thugs next?  How 'bout Jewish accountants?  Any other stereotype you want to trot out as a sash of shame that needs to be worn by everyone sharing a demographic? 

Good people on both sides, is that what you're saying?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Christians all over the world are still, TODAY, converting indigenous people, destroying their languages and cultures, raping little kids and adults, and trying to bring their version of Sharia Law (hate gays, kill everybody but fetuses, etc) to dozens of countries, including the USA.

Maybe after they stop and apologize and show they have gotten rid of all the bad actors, they can be allowed to participate in society?

Living in a gravity well sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Again I'll ask - do you think that anything in contemporary christian preaching is compelling people to commit these acts,  or are there a few lunatics like the WBC kooks who've decided on their own to make a stand and are twisting scripture in an attempt to legitimize their behavior?   

There IS a difference - and that you continue to harp on Christianity while excusing radical Islam really points to the fact that you are simply another person who's intolerant of everyone who doesn't share your ideas and priorities.   Your comment w/r/t kids is wholly offensive and wrong - nobody excuses or condones that behavior, and the Catholic church has indeed done a great wrong to all of the victims by trying to keep such incidents quiet in their attempts to handle the situation in house.   That in no way comports to your assertion that such behavior is "holy"-  that is patently offensive, even for you.  

 

I excuse radical islam? IMAGINE!  

That's where you just get stupid with your partisan blinders. I'm an equal mocker-er of Religion.  They are all worthless, and cause great damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If nothing else PA, gives an insight into the conundrum that is America. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You have fun playing with yourself Flash.  

Stop lying about my positions and you won’t be ridiculed so completely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, garuda3 said:

Lets not forget about the Cursades , going back to the 11th century.

The Crusades were organized by western European Christians after centuries of Muslim wars of expansion. Their primary objectives were to stop the expansion of Muslim states, to reclaim for Christianity the Holy Land in the Middle East, and to recapture territories that had formerly been Christian.
 
Tens of thousands of people (both soldiers and civilians) were killed in the conquest of Jerusalem. The Crusaders themselves suffered; historians estimate that only one in 20 survived to even reach the Holy Land. It is estimated that 1.7 million people died in total

The Crusades????  

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSVz4ybJbVBuZn8AQNS1HX

And that has fuck all do with with today, how?  Are you suggesting that Western society, culture and religion hasn't evolved in the last 700+ years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2019 at 6:22 AM, Mark K said:

What is stunning to me is the utter competence of Putin and Lavrov in all this.  

  Putin is guiding our FP in this area, and for the locals that might be for the best. We are currently like children compared to them.  Still dreaming of overturning Assad at this stage, as our neocons and Jacobin libereal interventionists are??  Damn silly.  

 

Yes Russia has done a great job trying to sort out this mess.

The US appears to work well with Russia with the space station be nice if you could work with Russia on other matters and get rid of your cold war fears.

How did Obama keep his Nobel Peace Prize when he fucked up Syria, Iraq and Libya? Everyone outside of the US knows the role he played in creating the Islamic state. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNha3nabZeI

 

Quote

How ISIS Got Weapons From the U.S. and Used Them to Take Iraq and Syria

https://www.newsweek.com/how-isis-got-weapons-us-used-them-take-iraq-syria-748468

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

The Crusades????  

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSVz4ybJbVBuZn8AQNS1HX

And that has fuck all do with with today, how?  Are you suggesting that Western society, culture and religion hasn't evolved in the last 700+ years?

not a second! and if we had Trump erased it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, garuda3 said:
On 10/29/2019 at 11:27 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Are you suggesting that Western society, culture and religion hasn't evolved in the last 700+ years?

not a second! and if we had Trump erased it!

Really?  You don't think Western culture and society have evolved at all in 700 years?  Please, do tell.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2019 at 3:51 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Really?  You don't think Western culture and society have evolved at all in 700 years?  Please, do tell.....

There's a book probably worth reading ,Anand Giridharadas - “Winners Take All”,

700 years ago there were kings and serf's, Kings lived in castles serf's in the fields the rich control all forms of life , that benefited themselves,

Today our King's are trying too control all our lives , castles have been replaced by Towers and mega yachts, and the top one percent have as much money as the bottom 80%,

Today the game of monopoly is more true then ever before, who ever has the most hotels wins, except there making up the rules that suit their needs to win.

Ironically one of the Koch brother passed and had a net worth of around 90 billion dollars, I guess he won.

so the answer to your question society has really changed in the last couple 100"s years, 

And people are still killing each other for the SPORT , whether you don't believe in your/their GOD , or some one cuts you off on the road ( stand your ground)

Actually with Trump in office our children will probably see the end of society or cultural as we know it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2019 at 3:51 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Really?  You don't think Western culture and society have evolved at all in 700 years?  Please, do tell.....

Do you think it has? In what ways?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Do you think it has? In what ways?

- DSK

I see no evidence at all that human nature has changed in thousands of years.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hundreds of U.S. Troops Leaving, and Also Arriving in, Syria

Quote

 

Every day in northeastern Syria, waves of American troops are pulling out under President Trump’s order this month that paved the way for a Turkish offensive that included assaults on the Pentagon’s allies, the Syrian Kurds.

And at the same time, a separate wave of American troops from the opposite direction is pouring back in.

In fact, once the comings and goings are done, the total number of United States forces in Syria is expected to be about 900 — close to the 1,000 troops on the ground when Mr. Trump ordered the withdrawal of American forces from the country.

 

Coming up on 11 months into the immediate withdrawal and it looks like it might take a bit longer.

Quote

Hundreds of Islamic State prisoners either escaped or were freed from detention in northern Syria, as Kurds turned their attention to fighting for their own survival.

"Detention" is so much nicer than "concentration camps."

On 10/10/2019 at 6:43 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

From the UN report:

Quote

“Up to 70,000 individuals remain interned in deplorable and inhumane conditions at Al Hol camp, the vast majority of whom are women and children under the age of 12,” he said.

 


Getting back to the NY Times article...

Quote

 

As of this week, at least half of the original 1,000 American troops in Syria have left, and more will continue to fly or drive out until roughly 250 of that original group are left, largely around Deir al-Zour in the south. Meanwhile, the first few hundred infantry troops, soon to be joined by mechanized troops in Bradley fighting vehicles and possibly a few tanks, have driven in from Iraq. Defense Department officials said the total number of American troops guarding the oil fields would be around 500.

When combined with the troops at Al-Tanf, that brings the number of American troops projected to be in Syria to near 900, a number that could easily rise if, as expected, the Islamic State begins to make a comeback.

“We’re under no illusion that they will go away because we killed Baghdadi,” said Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., the head of the military’s Central Command, during a Pentagon news conference Wednesday. “Since it’s an ideology, you will never be able to stamp it out.”

 

They hate us for our freedoms, lifestyles, and religion.

Oh, and because our proxies are locking up tens of thousands of their women and children in concentration camps. But I'm sure that's a minor factor and they are much more concerned with our lifestyles than the whole concentration camp thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you do with them, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

What would you do with them, then?

The idea that we must DO SOMETHING is the interventionist trap.

How about UNDOING SOMETHING?  You know, not meddling in the affairs of other countries so much, for example, not supporting proxies who run concentration camps full of women and children.

"if, as expected, the Islamic State begins to make a comeback," that will be because they have local support from people who hate us for our freedoms. Or maybe people who hate us for our meddling. Which do you think is more accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2019 at 2:51 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Really?  You don't think Western culture and society have evolved at all in 700 years?  Please, do tell.....

Doesn't look like a big change.

 

 "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

 “And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while.”

https://lobelog.com/the-war-on-terror-as-the-launching-of-an-american-crusade/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

What would you do with them, then?

Let the Syrians sort it out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now