What's the difference? - Update Sept 12, 2018, p. 4

[Virgil Showlion]

May 30, 2017 5:38:04 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

We would stop hunting them if they'd stop killing us.

What on Earth leads you to believe this?

The CIA has been engineering coups, fomenting aggression, arming the region for decades, since long before they created bin Laden. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but the coalition invaded and killed countless people anyway. Libya, Egypt, and Syria had nothing to do with 9/11 or the US, which didn't stop you from killing Qaddafi and cementing Libya as an ISIS stronghold. Or ousting Mubarak in Egypt and inviting in the Muslim Brotherhood. Or waging all-out war on al Assad, ISIS' mortal enemy and the only stabilizing force in Syria.

So I ask you: if all the bombings and beheadings ceased tomorrow, for what possible reason would the West's imperialist campaigns--along with the heavy casualties--stop?

Because it makes sense? Because it's a waste of resources? Because we don't manipulate, destabilize, invade, and raze nations for no reason?

I'm afraid none of the above apply in the 21st Century.

[billisonboard]

May 30, 2017 8:03:40 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...
On the bright side, people don't seem to be having any trouble sleeping.

Check the times of my posts here.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 30, 2017 8:17:36 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

You are more than welcome to take them into your home and country.

There's a difference between not inviting them into our countries and indiscriminately (or barely discriminately) bombing the crap out of them.

[billisonboard]

May 30, 2017 8:17:02 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Absolutely. I only have trouble sleeping if we aren't taking care of our own.

Is the current strategy truly taking care of us?

[zibazinski]

Not to me but whatever.

[billisonboard]

May 30, 2017 8:18:03 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 30, 2017 5:38:04 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

We would stop hunting them if they'd stop killing us.

What on Earth leads you to believe this?

The CIA has been engineering coups, fomenting aggression, arming the region for decades, since long before they created bin Laden. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but the coalition invaded and killed countless people anyway. Libya, Egypt, and Syria had nothing to do with 9/11 or the US, which didn't stop you from killing Qaddafi and cementing Libya as an ISIS stronghold. Or ousting Mubarak in Egypt and inviting in the Muslim Brotherhood. Or waging all-out war on al Assad, ISIS' mortal enemy and the only stabilizing force in Syria.

So I ask you: if all the bombings and beheadings ceased tomorrow, for what possible reason would the West's imperialist campaigns--along with the heavy casualties--stop?

Because it makes sense? Because it's a waste of resources? Because we don't manipulate, destabilize, invade, and raze nations for no reason?

I'm afraid none of the above apply in the 21st Century.

Good luck with this line. Look at how far I get with Benghazi being about more than Clinton/embassy security and Sunday morning talking points. We had a poster who had no idea what I was talking about when I mentioned the second attack on the CIA Annex.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 30, 2017 8:52:38 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 30, 2017 8:18:03 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

What on Earth leads you to believe this?

The CIA has been engineering coups, fomenting aggression, arming the region for decades, since long before they created bin Laden. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but the coalition invaded and killed countless people anyway. Libya, Egypt, and Syria had nothing to do with 9/11 or the US, which didn't stop you from killing Qaddafi and cementing Libya as an ISIS stronghold. Or ousting Mubarak in Egypt and inviting in the Muslim Brotherhood. Or waging all-out war on al Assad, ISIS' mortal enemy and the only stabilizing force in Syria.

So I ask you: if all the bombings and beheadings ceased tomorrow, for what possible reason would the West's imperialist campaigns--along with the heavy casualties--stop?

Because it makes sense? Because it's a waste of resources? Because we don't manipulate, destabilize, invade, and raze nations for no reason?

I'm afraid none of the above apply in the 21st Century.

Good luck with this line. Look at how far I get with Benghazi being about more than Clinton/embassy security and Sunday morning talking points. We had a poster who had no idea what I was talking about when I mentioned the second attack on the CIA Annex.

...or the CIA rat line, or the findings of the Democratic congressmen/women who went over to Syria, or the strategic reasons for Russia's support of al Assad (I can't rightly count the number of times I've heard people suppose "Well... it's because Putin hates the West, right?"), or...

We're over there Fighting Terrorists^®†.


† fighting may or may not result in exponential growth of terrorism; $3 trillion non-refundable deposit required; absolutely no warranties provided; informed populace not included

[Spellbound454]

There's a difference between not inviting them into our countries and indiscriminately (or barely discriminately) bombing the crap out of them.

We are bombing Isis strongholds in conjunction with people of the region.

Even if we stopped bombing, they wont stop. Their ideology is for an Islamist Caliphate to be the dominant force in the World.
They must not be allowed to proliferate......If they got their hands on Nuclear or biological weapons.... they would use them in a heartbeat.

However, just like Al Qaeda....They have killed too many Muslims and have lost support from all but the die-hards and the deluded.

[Spellbound454]

or the strategic reasons for Russia's support of al Assad

My guess would be that Syria is Putins client state, he is funding their military .... and he wants a base for his Black Sea fleet in the Med ( although he is not using it at the moment)
He badly does not want to lose influence in the Middle East.

Its Isis which hates the West ...and Russia....and that isnt going to change.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 30, 2017 9:53:58 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

or the strategic reasons for Russia's support of al Assad

My guess would be that Syria is Putins client state, he is funding their military .... and he wants a base for his Black Sea fleet in the Med ( although he is not using it at the moment)
He badly does not want to lose influence in the Middle East.

You're partly right. It also has to do with access to oil, trade routes, and geopolitics related to Turkey.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 30, 2017 9:40:44 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

They must not be allowed to proliferate.

Sucks to be us then, because the longer we've fought there, the more they've proliferated everywhere on Earth except the bits and pieces we're bombing into oblivion--and it is a causal relationship. The masters of war have readily admitted this for over a decade. Read the second article in the OP for details.

[billisonboard]

What's the difference?

In one the bombers are home in time for dinner.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 30, 2017 18:19:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

What's the difference?

In one the bombers are home in time for dinner.

...and every time they blow up 22 kids, they didn't mean to.

[billisonboard]

May 30, 2017 18:22:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 30, 2017 18:19:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

What's the difference?

In one the bombers are home in time for dinner.

...and every time they blow up 22 kids, they didn't mean to.

They don't blow up "22 kids", there are just people being collateral damage around at the bomb sites.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 30, 2017 18:28:18 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 30, 2017 18:22:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...and every time they blow up 22 kids, they didn't mean to.

They don't blow up "22 kids", there are just people being collateral damage around at the bomb sites.

Hup hup. You mean future terrorists and terrorist breeders being collateral damage around the bomb sites.

Assuming you didn't just accidentally fire a missile into a DWB hospital, which only happens a few times a year. But those French doctors are practically terrorists too.

[zibazinski]

I'm sure that's a lot of comfort to the children and others harmed in Manchester. Maybe he thought of them as collateral damage because they were at a concert.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 30, 2017 18:36:27 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I'm sure that's a lot of comfort to the children and others harmed in Manchester. Maybe he thought of them as collateral damage because they were at a concert.

He targeted the concert because it was a symbol of Western exhibitionism and because he regarded the concertgoers the same way we regard Syrians: expendable dross to be exterminated in pursuit of an overriding mission.

[zibazinski]

Well, we'd leave them alone if they'd leave us alone but they won't. So it's us vs. them and I vote us.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 30, 2017 18:49:02 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Well, we'd leave them alone if they'd leave us alone but they won't. So it's us vs. them and I vote us.

I agree it's us versus them.

Your first sentence isn't true. See the first post on this page.

The question you have to ask yourself is: Do we reap a better outcome through a continued campaign in Syria than if we withdraw?

If you answer "yes", it flies in the face of at least 15 years of observation.

[zibazinski]

In your opinion.

[billisonboard]

May 30, 2017 19:01:48 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

In your opinion.

Mine also.

[zibazinski]

I understand. That's the way you think and feel.

[Deleted]

May 30, 2017 8:18:03 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 30, 2017 5:38:04 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

We would stop hunting them if they'd stop killing us.

What on Earth leads you to believe this?

The CIA has been engineering coups, fomenting aggression, arming the region for decades, since long before they created bin Laden. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but the coalition invaded and killed countless people anyway. Libya, Egypt, and Syria had nothing to do with 9/11 or the US, which didn't stop you from killing Qaddafi and cementing Libya as an ISIS stronghold. Or ousting Mubarak in Egypt and inviting in the Muslim Brotherhood. Or waging all-out war on al Assad, ISIS' mortal enemy and the only stabilizing force in Syria.

So I ask you: if all the bombings and beheadings ceased tomorrow, for what possible reason would the West's imperialist campaigns--along with the heavy casualties--stop?

Because it makes sense? Because it's a waste of resources? Because we don't manipulate, destabilize, invade, and raze nations for no reason?

I'm afraid none of the above apply in the 21st Century.

Ohhh... I dunno. Several decades of us NOT hunting terrorists and their support until AFTER we've been attacked? I don't suppose that could be it... naaahhh....

[Virgil Showlion]

May 30, 2017 19:23:38 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

May 30, 2017 8:18:03 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

What on Earth leads you to believe this?

The CIA has been engineering coups, fomenting aggression, arming the region for decades, since long before they created bin Laden. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but the coalition invaded and killed countless people anyway. Libya, Egypt, and Syria had nothing to do with 9/11 or the US, which didn't stop you from killing Qaddafi and cementing Libya as an ISIS stronghold. Or ousting Mubarak in Egypt and inviting in the Muslim Brotherhood. Or waging all-out war on al Assad, ISIS' mortal enemy and the only stabilizing force in Syria.

So I ask you: if all the bombings and beheadings ceased tomorrow, for what possible reason would the West's imperialist campaigns--along with the heavy casualties--stop?

Because it makes sense? Because it's a waste of resources? Because we don't manipulate, destabilize, invade, and raze nations for no reason?

I'm afraid none of the above apply in the 21st Century.

Ohhh... I dunno. Several decades of us NOT hunting terrorists and their support until AFTER we've been attacked? I don't suppose that could be it... naaahhh....

Not hunting terrorists necessarily, but causing havoc in the Middle East. Overthrowing governments. Arming rebellions. Alternately installing and removing dictators.

You think bin Laden and al Qaeda just popped out of nowhere?

You'd have to go back more than 60 years to reach an era when the US wasn't stirring up crap in the Middle East. The only constant from then until now is escalation. In spite of spiraling costs, failure, proliferation of terrorism, erosion of public support, no clear mission or objective... you're still in up to your neck.

If you got out tomorrow, all it would take is one group of ten men pulling off one bombing to bring the next US administration racing back in.

No, the "You leave us alone, we'll leave you alone." non-interventionist ethos is a relic of a long-forgotten past. As much as I'd like ISIS to hang up their machetes and seek terms of peace, it makes no sense for them to do so. Maybe if you could elect a halfway decent president...

[zibazinski]

Then they've made their choice. I'll bet on us before them. Europe is toast.

[Deleted]

May 30, 2017 20:27:17 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 30, 2017 19:23:38 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Ohhh... I dunno. Several decades of us NOT hunting terrorists and their support until AFTER we've been attacked? I don't suppose that could be it... naaahhh....

Not hunting terrorists necessarily, but causing havoc in the Middle East. Overthrowing governments. Arming rebellions. Alternately installing and removing dictators.

You think bin Laden and al Qaeda just popped out of nowhere?

You'd have to go back more than 60 years to reach an era when the US wasn't stirring up crap in the Middle East. The only constant from then until now is escalation. In spite of spiraling costs, failure, proliferation of terrorism, erosion of public support, no clear mission or objective... you're still in up to your neck.

If you got out tomorrow, all it would take is one group of ten men pulling off one bombing to bring the next US administration racing back in.

No, the "You leave us alone, we'll leave you alone." non-interventionist ethos is a relic of a long-forgotten past. As much as I'd like ISIS to hang up their machetes and seek terms of peace, it makes no sense for them to do so. Maybe if you could elect a halfway decent president...

If voters would stop using the top five POINTLESS criteria for voting... we probably would.

(note: the "top five pointless criteria for voting" are, in no particular order: race, gender, religion, party, "best of two bad choices, when there are actually more than two choices")

[Virgil Showlion]

May 30, 2017 21:58:41 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

May 30, 2017 20:27:17 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Not hunting terrorists necessarily, but causing havoc in the Middle East. Overthrowing governments. Arming rebellions. Alternately installing and removing dictators.

You think bin Laden and al Qaeda just popped out of nowhere?

You'd have to go back more than 60 years to reach an era when the US wasn't stirring up crap in the Middle East. The only constant from then until now is escalation. In spite of spiraling costs, failure, proliferation of terrorism, erosion of public support, no clear mission or objective... you're still in up to your neck.

If you got out tomorrow, all it would take is one group of ten men pulling off one bombing to bring the next US administration racing back in.

No, the "You leave us alone, we'll leave you alone." non-interventionist ethos is a relic of a long-forgotten past. As much as I'd like ISIS to hang up their machetes and seek terms of peace, it makes no sense for them to do so. Maybe if you could elect a halfway decent president...

If voters would stop using the top five POINTLESS criteria for voting... we probably would.

(note: the "top five pointless criteria for voting" are, in no particular order: race, gender, religion, party, "best of two bad choices, when there are actually more than two choices")

YMAM is no better.

How many times have I beheld comments like "He speaks like a robot."

"He doesn't inspire passion."

"He's too low energy."

"He looks dopey."

"He sounds whiny." or "She sounds screechy."

[djAdvocate]

May 29, 2017 21:37:35 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

May 29, 2017 14:19:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

From Yahoo! News (bold by me):

Beirut (AFP) - US-led air strikes on Syria killed a total of 225 civilians over the past month, a monitor said on Tuesday, the highest 30-day toll since the campaign began in 2014.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the civilian dead between April 23 and May 23 included 44 children and 36 women.

The US-led air campaign against the Islamic State jihadist group in Syria began on September 23, 2014.

"The past month of operations is the highest civilian toll since the coalition began bombing Syria," Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP.

"There has been a very big escalation."

The previous deadliest 30-day period was between February 23 and March 23 this year, when 220 civilians were killed, Abdel Rahman said.

In its war against one enemy state, the US and UK governments--possibly your governments--have killed 225 innocent civilians in the past month alone, equivalent to 10 Manchester bombings in one month.

A greater discussion on how the war in which we're now engaged was a predictable (and indeed, predicted) consequence of US foreign policy dating back to 2003 is viewable here.

We call ISIS agents "cowards"--cruel, inhuman, devoid of all decency, murderers of children. Given the acts of our respective states and our near-total indifference to the suffering of our enemies, why on Earth should they take us seriously?

Ten Manchester bombings a month on your dime, with your permission, with nary a tear shed. This is what you're carrying on your back when you spot a would-be ISIS terrorist and go up to talk to him. What do you say to him? How do you convince him you deserve to live?

Your children and innocents would quit being collateral damage if you'd quit hiding in towns and cities and religious places and hospitals... and if you'd quit committing terrorism.

None of our attacks TARGET the innocent. Terrorist attacks, on the other hand, usually ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY target the innocent.

i'm sure the families of the innocent will appreciate that distinction.......














NOT

[djAdvocate]

May 30, 2017 19:20:29 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I understand. That's the way you think and feel.

with very good support, i might add.

[zibazinski]

Obviously not the majority of people but on this board of course.