Bombing in Belgium Airport, Metro stations - Page 3

On March 23 2016 19:56 fira wrote: what does it mean to take responsibility though? how can a state take responsibility for the actions of a few people? and, is the statement supposed to be an apology, or like, a declaration of war?

Certainly not an apology... it's more like bragging as a recruitment tool / as a demonstration of 'power'. They've already declared war but we don't recognize them as a state so therefore it can't be a traditional country vs country war. This is why the war on terror is stupid - it's not specific enough to ever win because you can't ever declare victory over the generality of 'evil'. Evil, terror, it will always manifest. As for ISIS, they now have control of territory in Syria and Iraq that is very sizable.

What we need to do is unify NATO in declaring a war on Jihadism, encompassing ISIS, Alkeida, Boko Haram, etc. and set some specific goals. What those would be exactly I don't know, but the simple fact needs to be that if you aid Islamic Terrorists - as Pakistan knowingly aided Osama Bin Laden, etc. - you are now at war with NATO. It doesn't mean we should go in and kill innocent people on purpose, but there will inevitably be collateral damage, that's just the truth. It will need to be a combination of harsh sanctions, closed borders, and yes - military action. The US will need to lead because that's just the way it is, Western European governments have no will or backbone and are on the verge of economic bankruptcy - besides Germany. Inevitably, the far left will demonize us as warmongers but it's long past time that we try to appease those who have no interest in being appeased, rather are only interested in dividing for political gain. The kneejerk reaction to blame Islamophobia is a clear example of this - it is not rooted in any sort of fact at all and does nothing good - it just pisses people off. As the graph above shows, Islamophobia isn't a growing problem.

This is an inevitability. The only question is how long we practice this stupid strategy of trying to achieve peace with people who DON'T WANT IT by showing them how loving we are. The cancer will continue to spread, and millions of peace loving Christians and moderate Muslims will continue to be murked. It's an absurd strategy that is built on a faulty premise. Going into Iraq was a bad idea, but pulling out and leaving a vacuum once the damage was done was even worse. We can't leave vacuums, we need to wipe out the enemy, and not democracy build - but absolutely stick around in a residual capacity until moderate governments are stable and in place. This may take a few decades. Big fucking deal. We still have troops in Japan - it's not the end of the world - it's peaceful and they are happy and free.

On March 23 2016 05:15 soberstone wrote: France is fucked. Germany is fucked. And WW3 is probably not far off. You guys really need to get your shit together over there. If I'm being over-dramatic, watch the 4 minute video and show me how, cause I'd really like to wake-up tomorrow and know that this is all fear-mongering. I'd MUCH rather be wrong.

lol this dude is a nut. you should look into him.

one of many examples:

If you pay tuition, you're sponsoring the militant homosexual agenda. If you pay taxes, you're sponsoring the militant homosexual agenda. If your child majors in English, you're sponsoring the militant homosexual agenda. Tell Billy to major in math.

http://townhall.com/columnists/bensha...ant_gay_english_on_the_rise/page/full

This article is actually hilarious i strongly recommend it to everyone

This is what should be supported and grown abroad.
#t=10

Baalim's response was a quality counter-argument which I can respect. Ultimately I think you are just minimizing the issue though. 1 million people that are full-blown Jihadists is nothing to sneeze at IMO.

Passiveace's was the typical non-sense attacking the messenger with no coherent argument. Did you even read the article? You don't have a problem with a taxpayers funding a course called "How to be Gay" at the University of Michigan? SMH.... I agree with one thing you said, people should read the article... I don't personally want to pay taxes so impressionable kids can go take a course who's goal is to:

"This course will examine the general topic of the role that initiation plays in the formation of gay male identity ... In particular, we will examine a number of cultural artifacts and activities that seem to play a prominent role in learning how to be gay: (including) camp, diva-worship, drag, muscle culture, taste, style and political activism."

This DOESN'T bother you? Good God....Explain WHY he's a nut with facts or substantive commentary. I challenge you. Is anything he says in the article factually incorrect? Sounds like you read the last paragraph and that's it, because you make no substantive points whatsoever.

I'm sure this somehow makes me homophobic.

Whamm - Good video.

roflllllll

more propaganda for bigots

On March 24 2016 03:09 whamm! wrote: more propaganda for bigots

I love Milo. Guess I'm a bigot. I wear it like a badge of honor. Means nothing these days except that you hold everyone to the same standard regardless of race/sex/creed etc. Ironically that's what liberalism used to be about. Now there's a hierarchy of privilege which is inherently bigoted and fosters a feeling of victimization which ultimately harms minority groups the most. Milo has balls, probably gonna get murked by some Bill Ayers fueled moveon.org bleeding heart intolerant regressive pretty soon.

On March 23 2016 20:19 soberstone wrote: Show nested quote + On March 23 2016 19:56 fira wrote: what does it mean to take responsibility though? how can a state take responsibility for the actions of a few people? and, is the statement supposed to be an apology, or like, a declaration of war? Certainly not an apology... it's more like bragging as a recruitment tool / as a demonstration of 'power'. They've already declared war but we don't recognize them as a state so therefore it can't be a traditional country vs country war. This is why the war on terror is stupid - it's not specific enough to ever win because you can't ever declare victory over the generality of 'evil'. Evil, terror, it will always manifest. As for ISIS, they now have control of territory in Syria and Iraq that is very sizable. What we need to do is unify NATO in declaring a war on Jihadism, encompassing ISIS, Alkeida, Boko Haram, etc. and set some specific goals. What those would be exactly I don't know, but the simple fact needs to be that if you aid Islamic Terrorists - as Pakistan knowingly aided Osama Bin Laden, etc. - you are now at war with NATO. It doesn't mean we should go in and kill innocent people on purpose, but there will inevitably be collateral damage, that's just the truth. It will need to be a combination of harsh sanctions, closed borders, and yes - military action. The US will need to lead because that's just the way it is, Western European governments have no will or backbone and are on the verge of economic bankruptcy - besides Germany. Inevitably, the far left will demonize us as warmongers but it's long past time that we try to appease those who have no interest in being appeased, rather are only interested in dividing for political gain. The kneejerk reaction to blame Islamophobia is a clear example of this - it is not rooted in any sort of fact at all and does nothing good - it just pisses people off. As the graph above shows, Islamophobia isn't a growing problem. This is an inevitability. The only question is how long we practice this stupid strategy of trying to achieve peace with people who DON'T WANT IT by showing them how loving we are. The cancer will continue to spread, and millions of peace loving Christians and moderate Muslims will continue to be murked. It's an absurd strategy that is built on a faulty premise. Going into Iraq was a bad idea, but pulling out and leaving a vacuum once the damage was done was even worse. We can't leave vacuums, we need to wipe out the enemy, and not democracy build - but absolutely stick around in a residual capacity until moderate governments are stable and in place. This may take a few decades. Big fucking deal. We still have troops in Japan - it's not the end of the world - it's peaceful and they are happy and free.

Yes because armed conflict has showed that it helps combat terrorist cells and their numbers do not incrase at all... right?....

Obviously declaring open war on any country that the CIA deems that has helped in some form a terrorist cell is a terrible idea that instead of reducing terrorism will make it worse exponentially, even Milo mentions that the west should not occupy many of their countries because that fuels the hatred that moves terrorism.

It is not a country you are fighting but an ideology and culture and you only fan the flames when you attack it, just get your hands out of the fucking fire and lt it burn by itself

On March 24 2016 07:42 Baalim wrote: It is not a country you are fighting but an ideology and culture and you only fan the flames when you attack it, just get your hands out of the fucking fire and lt it burn by itself

sad, and suffering of hundreds of thousands, but true and it wont happen

quite sure USA d rather stomp on a country than to stop destabilizing the region

On March 24 2016 07:42 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 23 2016 20:19 soberstone wrote:   On March 23 2016 19:56 fira wrote: what does it mean to take responsibility though? how can a state take responsibility for the actions of a few people? and, is the statement supposed to be an apology, or like, a declaration of war? Certainly not an apology... it's more like bragging as a recruitment tool / as a demonstration of 'power'. They've already declared war but we don't recognize them as a state so therefore it can't be a traditional country vs country war. This is why the war on terror is stupid - it's not specific enough to ever win because you can't ever declare victory over the generality of 'evil'. Evil, terror, it will always manifest. As for ISIS, they now have control of territory in Syria and Iraq that is very sizable. What we need to do is unify NATO in declaring a war on Jihadism, encompassing ISIS, Alkeida, Boko Haram, etc. and set some specific goals. What those would be exactly I don't know, but the simple fact needs to be that if you aid Islamic Terrorists - as Pakistan knowingly aided Osama Bin Laden, etc. - you are now at war with NATO. It doesn't mean we should go in and kill innocent people on purpose, but there will inevitably be collateral damage, that's just the truth. It will need to be a combination of harsh sanctions, closed borders, and yes - military action. The US will need to lead because that's just the way it is, Western European governments have no will or backbone and are on the verge of economic bankruptcy - besides Germany. Inevitably, the far left will demonize us as warmongers but it's long past time that we try to appease those who have no interest in being appeased, rather are only interested in dividing for political gain. The kneejerk reaction to blame Islamophobia is a clear example of this - it is not rooted in any sort of fact at all and does nothing good - it just pisses people off. As the graph above shows, Islamophobia isn't a growing problem. This is an inevitability. The only question is how long we practice this stupid strategy of trying to achieve peace with people who DON'T WANT IT by showing them how loving we are. The cancer will continue to spread, and millions of peace loving Christians and moderate Muslims will continue to be murked. It's an absurd strategy that is built on a faulty premise. Going into Iraq was a bad idea, but pulling out and leaving a vacuum once the damage was done was even worse. We can't leave vacuums, we need to wipe out the enemy, and not democracy build - but absolutely stick around in a residual capacity until moderate governments are stable and in place. This may take a few decades. Big fucking deal. We still have troops in Japan - it's not the end of the world - it's peaceful and they are happy and free. Yes because armed conflict has showed that it helps combat terrorist cells and their numbers do not incrase at all... right?.... Obviously declaring open war on any country that the CIA deems that has helped in some form a terrorist cell is a terrible idea that instead of reducing terrorism will make it worse exponentially, even Milo mentions that the west should not occupy many of their countries because that fuels the hatred that moves terrorism. It is not a country you are fighting but an ideology and culture and you only fan the flames when you attack it, just get your hands out of the fucking fire and lt it burn by itself

Um. Actually yes. I happen to take ISIS at their word that they want us dead unless we convert. That doesn't mean stop bombing. It means convert or die. I don't buy the Leftwing rhetoric that us defending ourselves helps recruitment. I think it's BS. You don't fan the flame when you attack it. You kill it. They don't use reality to recruit. They use their success to recruit disenfranchised youth, not moral equivalencies. How do you explain the recent exponential spreading of ISIS? Are you still blaming Bush? Because we are doing relatively nothing to them right now. Is the 'containment' strategy working? If so, we have a vastly different definition of 'working'.

There will be more attacks in the coming weeks.

On March 24 2016 20:06 soberstone wrote: How do you explain the recent exponential spreading of ISIS? Are you still blaming Bush?

How do you explain the situation in Syria, cause thats their exponential growth you're talking about.
How was it that there were no such threats while Khadaffi and Hussein were in power ? Why were arabs even in Africa destabilized ? They were doing atrocious stuff yes, so are Saudi Arabia and Israel, morals have no power in such games. Why were those 2 leaders demolished? Why was Syria demolished ?

Questions that should be asked are not how and why ISIS is what it is today, since that is more than obvious when you observe the short past of the arabic world and the politics revolving around it and the money flow going directly into ISIS.
It blows my mind people still think ISIS's main goal is to spread islam and blah blah. Are you that stupid, honestly? Have you not learned anything from our history as a species ? Its always the same - spread propaganda about a moral system while the system itself runs and its goals are something entirely else. Do you think baboons are running that organization ?
I'm not diminishing the threat the civilized world faces, but then again if you don't understand that the text above might as well have been read by a 5yo.

Go vote for Trump or something

I'm Jewish and completely agree with all of this. Guess it makes me a self-hating Jew.

On March 24 2016 22:08 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On March 24 2016 20:06 soberstone wrote: How do you explain the recent exponential spreading of ISIS? Are you still blaming Bush? How do you explain the situation in Syria, cause thats their exponential growth you're talking about. How was it that there were no such threats while Khadaffi and Hussein were in power ? Why were arabs even in Africa destabilized ? They were doing atrocious stuff yes, so are Saudi Arabia and Israel, morals have no power in such games. Why were those 2 leaders demolished? Why was Syria demolished ? Questions that should be asked are not how and why ISIS is what it is today, since that is more than obvious when you observe the short past of the arabic world and the politics revolving around it and the money flow going directly into ISIS. It blows my mind people still think ISIS's main goal is to spread islam and blah blah. Are you that stupid, honestly? Have you not learned anything from our history as a species ? Its always the same - spread propaganda about a moral system while the system itself runs and its goals are something entirely else. Do you think baboons are running that organization ? I'm not diminishing the threat the civilized world faces, but then again if you don't understand that the text above might as well have been read by a 5yo. Go vote for Trump or something

Already explained it dummy. Stupid war. Even stupider hasty retreat that left a power vacuum. Both were wrong. Maybe try and read the argument the other side has made, since I already answered this question. You seem to think that all wars are evil and unbridled passivism is the answer. You also answered my question with a question, typical libtard with no concrete answers.

LOL? And yes, I understand the argument you are making about how ISIS isn't at its core Muslim but just evil which manifests as a power-seeking entity which is simply using the Quaran and Islam as a front. Cool argument bro, you sound like the ultimate retard. Point is it's WITHIN MUSLIM CULTURE. That's where the problem LIES. You can't wrap your head around the fact that people like me understand your super 'nuanced' argument but you don't understand ours. Point is, you are so obsessed with political correctness, not alienating specific groups, etc, that you are willing to give giant sectors of the population a pass every single time there is a problem so long as they are ultimately considered a minority group. That in itself is bigoted, dangerous, and stupid. If the problem lies in the Jewish community, call it out. If it lies in the white community, call it out. Right now, the bane of civilized society lies within a certain semi-large sector of the Muslim community and the Progressives that bend over backwards to enable it. Get over it.

Not a Trump supporter. Keep painting with the broad brush you hate so much.

Go vote for Bernie Sanders or something. You obviously buy the non-sense that all rich people stole their money from poor people and all we need is love and redistribution.

Now if you are willing to put the name-calling and character attacks aside, so am I.

Please answer my question with an answer:

How do you explain the spread of ISIS given that our foreign policy over the past 8 years has been one of military retreat and isolationism? Is it a delayed result of Bush's policy? If so, if I concede that (for the sake of debate) - than at what point and how many attacks would you advocate military action? Should we wait until they drop a bomb? Somewhere in between? Please outline a substantive answer, as I am perfectly willing to do for any question you have for me so long as it is not rhetorical in nature.

86 more dead in Nigeria by Boko Haram. #blamebush

Edit: Just incase anyone is wondering, this means Islamic State West Africa province.

On March 25 2016 00:52 soberstone wrote: 86 more dead in Nigeria by Boko Haram. #blamebush Edit: Just incase anyone is wondering, this means Islamic State West Africa province.

colonialism backfires on us again

On March 25 2016 00:57 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On March 25 2016 00:52 soberstone wrote: 86 more dead in Nigeria by Boko Haram. #blamebush Edit: Just incase anyone is wondering, this means Islamic State West Africa province. colonialism backfires on us again

It's only been 75 years.... lets keep blaming Colonialism.

That's pretty much akin to blaming Jim Crow for the crackhead on the corner who happens to be black. It's loosely related, but it's also a stupid place to place primary blame. Is there no room for choice and personal responsibility here? If so, Jim Crow was just a function of slavery which is just a function of black men in Africa selling other black men to white men. And on and on we go. Your logic isn't logical.

Pretty soon this stuff won't be big news. Western terrorism does seem to be accelerating though. Was like, 9/11, then 7/7, then Madrid all spaced apart a few years. Now I more or less expect a terrorist attack to happen in Europe or NA bi-monthly to quarterly. Maybe I'm a cynic.

Agreed with Nolan.

The only reason WW3 seems so close is because of idiots who view over 1 billion people as "a problem"

Sam Harris thinks Ben Carson got foreign policy all figured out. So when the conversation is degraded to a point of mentioning him, it is my cue to leave. I can find more dignity in people joining ISIS than Sam Harris.