Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 4:56:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 13:21:26 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2014 14:15:46 GMT -5
they're not done yet, apparently. they have another one lined up. |
|
Spellbound454
Senior Member
"In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends"
Joined: Sept 9, 2011 17:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 3,988
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Aug 20, 2014 17:46:23 GMT -5
This has caused a political storm over here. That guy has a North London accent and he is a Brit
Even got the PM back off holiday to make sure he get identified.
ISIS have a very good propaganda machine. It needs stopping and countering....Its the air they breathe and needs to be shut down.
Many bored young men are going there because they think it will be a bit of an adventure....some 400 could be British.
As for the other guy. His card is marked I'm afraid.
US government won't be blackmailed by a bunch of murderous bastards.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 4:56:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 20:21:02 GMT -5
The easiest way to guarantee more terrorism/kidnappings/killings... is to give in to their demands when they happen.
Hopefully the US Government will NEVER give in (and yes, I hope that, even if I, personally, am the kidnapped/terrorized person).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2014 20:27:52 GMT -5
The easiest way to guarantee more terrorism/kidnappings/killings... is to give in to their demands when they happen. Hopefully the US Government will NEVER give in (and yes, I hope that, even if I, personally, am the kidnapped/terrorized person). the US already appeased AQ during the Bush administration. but you mean "never again", i presume? |
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782 
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Aug 20, 2014 20:35:55 GMT -5
I have always doubted the "Religion of Peace". You have one choice to accept Mohammed as the profit and that Allah is great! No freedom no choice , one religion or death. Rule through fear. So was Christianity the "Religion of Peace", which includes Roman Catholics and Protestants in Europe. There was the Crusades to the Holy Land during the High and Late Middle Ages. There were the Catholic Inquisitions in Spain and Portugal (which spread to the Americas). The Thirty Years' War involved Catholics against Protestants. The Spanish conquest and destruction of the Inca, Mayan and Aztec civilizations, all in the name of God and Jesus. More recently, after the break up of Yugoslavia, the Balkan Wars involving Christians fighting Muslims. These are just a few examples. Many of the above events did happen long ago. Some of them during more recent times. But who is to say some Christian uprising could not arise again. It probably will at some time in the future. This ISIS group is a bunch of religious radicals/extremists in which few citizens in the affected countries want them in control. I believe at some point in the near future, ISIS will be contained and destroyed. Is it possible to talk about modern day atrocities of radical islam without " well the Christians back in the crusades blah , blah."? |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 4:56:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 20:43:14 GMT -5
The easiest way to guarantee more terrorism/kidnappings/killings... is to give in to their demands when they happen. Hopefully the US Government will NEVER give in (and yes, I hope that, even if I, personally, am the kidnapped/terrorized person). the US already appeased AQ during the Bush administration. but you mean "never again", i presume? Source please. And no... I didn't mean "never again" if I had meant "never again" I would have said "never again". |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 4:56:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 20:54:01 GMT -5
So was Christianity the "Religion of Peace", which includes Roman Catholics and Protestants in Europe. There was the Crusades to the Holy Land during the High and Late Middle Ages. There were the Catholic Inquisitions in Spain and Portugal (which spread to the Americas). The Thirty Years' War involved Catholics against Protestants. The Spanish conquest and destruction of the Inca, Mayan and Aztec civilizations, all in the name of God and Jesus. More recently, after the break up of Yugoslavia, the Balkan Wars involving Christians fighting Muslims. These are just a few examples. Many of the above events did happen long ago. Some of them during more recent times. But who is to say some Christian uprising could not arise again. It probably will at some time in the future. This ISIS group is a bunch of religious radicals/extremists in which few citizens in the affected countries want them in control. I believe at some point in the near future, ISIS will be contained and destroyed. Is it possible to talk about modern day atrocities of radical islam without " well the Christians back in the crusades blah , blah."? It wouldn't be fair to do that. Christianity is (about) 600 years older than Islam. So to compare "apples to apples" (so to speak), one must compare Christianity of several hundred years ago to Islam now. The world is moving faster now than it did back then so a straight/strict 600 year differential doesn't make sense... but one must account for growth. |
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Aug 20, 2014 20:56:16 GMT -5
I am talking about today. Wow.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Aug 20, 2014 21:08:01 GMT -5
These people are horrible. The only thing they understand is overwhelming force.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2014 21:13:48 GMT -5
the US already appeased AQ during the Bush administration. but you mean "never again", i presume? Source please. the DOD. the state department. and about half the MSM.And no... I didn't mean "never again" if I had meant "never again" I would have said "never again". i was wondering about that. thanks for clearing it up. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2014 21:15:19 GMT -5
These people are horrible. The only thing they understand is overwhelming force. they want that more than anything you can imagine. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 4:56:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 21:28:28 GMT -5
I am talking about today. Wow. So am I. Today, Islam is equivalent to Christianity of 300-500 years ago. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 20, 2014 21:28:36 GMT -5
So was Christianity the "Religion of Peace", which includes Roman Catholics and Protestants in Europe. There was the Crusades to the Holy Land during the High and Late Middle Ages. There were the Catholic Inquisitions in Spain and Portugal (which spread to the Americas). The Thirty Years' War involved Catholics against Protestants. The Spanish conquest and destruction of the Inca, Mayan and Aztec civilizations, all in the name of God and Jesus. More recently, after the break up of Yugoslavia, the Balkan Wars involving Christians fighting Muslims. These are just a few examples.Many of the above events did happen long ago. Some of them during more recent times. But who is to say some Christian uprising could not arise again. It probably will at some time in the future.This ISIS group is a bunch of religious radicals/extremists in which few citizens in the affected countries want them in control. I believe at some point in the near future, ISIS will be contained and destroyed. Is it possible to talk about modern day atrocities of radical islam without " well the Christians back in the crusades blah , blah."?  And you wonder why many posters do not like you. Your delivery sucks. As for the Crusades-the Serb Christians massacring the muslims in Bosnia was in the mid-1990s. Pretty recent in my book. Maybe you had not started grammar school yet by 1995-I do not know. Trials agaist the offending Serb are still going on in Europe. Modern day Islam atrocities go hand-in-hand with modern day Christian atrocities. Just depends which part of the world they take place. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 4:56:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 21:29:04 GMT -5
Source please. the DOD. the state department. and about half the MSM.And no... I didn't mean "never again" if I had meant "never again" I would have said "never again". i was wondering about that. thanks for clearing it up. Source please. (you know... a link?) |
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Aug 20, 2014 21:30:16 GMT -5
Aww are you saying u don't like me? Well boo hoo. How will I go on?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 20, 2014 21:33:25 GMT -5
Aww are you saying u don't like me? Well boo hoo. How will I go on? Poor Shooby-always looking for a fight. |
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Aug 20, 2014 21:34:38 GMT -5
You brought up the "liking" thing because you can't have a discussion any other way.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2014 21:39:51 GMT -5
i was wondering about that. thanks for clearing it up. Source please. (you know... a link?) keep hoping you will take the bait and look. sigh. fine. first of all, this- the DEMAND: Since Saudi Arabia houses the holiest sites in Islam (Mecca and Medina), many Muslims were upset at the permanent presence of non-Muslim U.S., British and French military personnel. The continued presence of U.S. troops after the Gulf War in Saudi Arabia was also one of the stated motivations behind the September 11th terrorist attacks[1] and the Khobar Towers bombing. The date of the 1998 United States embassy bombings was eight years to the day (August 7) that American troops were sent to Saudi Arabia.[2] Bin Laden interpreted the Prophet Muhammad as banning the "permanent presence of infidels in Arabia".[3]this is from Wikipedia second, the APPEASEMENT:
On April 29, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld announced that he would be withdrawing the bulk of U.S. troops from the country, stating that the Iraq War no longer required the support. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz had earlier said that the continuing large U.S. presence in the kingdom was putting American lives in danger. The announcement came one day after the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) was shifted from Prince Sultan Air Base to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. However, defense assistance activities such as the United States Military Training Mission Saudi Arabia (USMTM) and the Office of the Program Manager, Saudi Arabian National Guard Modernization Program (OPM-SANG) at the Eskan Village complex outside of Riyadh remained in place.
The move was controversial, as some said that it was a needless contingent that only enraged Muslim populations, while others said that the United States were caving to the demands of Osama bin Laden.
this was widely reported at the time, but didn't make headlines, as we were all busy being distracted by Shock And Awe, which was in it's 8th day. that was intentional. had Bush done this in January of 2003, instead, it would have been seen precisely for what it was: appeasement. OBL must have been the happiest man alive. |
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Aug 20, 2014 22:03:51 GMT -5
Btw why did the Foley's executioner have a British accent,?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 4:56:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 23:04:17 GMT -5
Source please. (you know... a link?) keep hoping you will take the bait and look. sigh. fine. first of all, this- the DEMAND: Since Saudi Arabia houses the holiest sites in Islam (Mecca and Medina), many Muslims were upset at the permanent presence of non-Muslim U.S., British and French military personnel. The continued presence of U.S. troops after the Gulf War in Saudi Arabia was also one of the stated motivations behind the September 11th terrorist attacks[1] and the Khobar Towers bombing. The date of the 1998 United States embassy bombings was eight years to the day (August 7) that American troops were sent to Saudi Arabia.[2] Bin Laden interpreted the Prophet Muhammad as banning the "permanent presence of infidels in Arabia".[3]this is from Wikipedia second, the APPEASEMENT:
On April 29, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld announced that he would be withdrawing the bulk of U.S. troops from the country, stating that the Iraq War no longer required the support. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz had earlier said that the continuing large U.S. presence in the kingdom was putting American lives in danger. The announcement came one day after the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) was shifted from Prince Sultan Air Base to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. However, defense assistance activities such as the United States Military Training Mission Saudi Arabia (USMTM) and the Office of the Program Manager, Saudi Arabian National Guard Modernization Program (OPM-SANG) at the Eskan Village complex outside of Riyadh remained in place.
The move was controversial, as some said that it was a needless contingent that only enraged Muslim populations, while others said that the United States were caving to the demands of Osama bin Laden.
this was widely reported at the time, but didn't make headlines, as we were all busy being distracted by Shock And Awe, which was in it's 8th day. that was intentional. had Bush done this in January of 2003, instead, it would have been seen precisely for what it was: appeasement. OBL must have been the happiest man alive. I tried as hard as I could... I really did... but I just couldn't get any of your LINKS to work. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2014 23:18:44 GMT -5
keep hoping you will take the bait and look. sigh. fine. first of all, this- the DEMAND: Since Saudi Arabia houses the holiest sites in Islam (Mecca and Medina), many Muslims were upset at the permanent presence of non-Muslim U.S., British and French military personnel. The continued presence of U.S. troops after the Gulf War in Saudi Arabia was also one of the stated motivations behind the September 11th terrorist attacks[1] and the Khobar Towers bombing. The date of the 1998 United States embassy bombings was eight years to the day (August 7) that American troops were sent to Saudi Arabia.[2] Bin Laden interpreted the Prophet Muhammad as banning the "permanent presence of infidels in Arabia".[3]this is from Wikipedia second, the APPEASEMENT:
On April 29, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld announced that he would be withdrawing the bulk of U.S. troops from the country, stating that the Iraq War no longer required the support. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz had earlier said that the continuing large U.S. presence in the kingdom was putting American lives in danger. The announcement came one day after the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) was shifted from Prince Sultan Air Base to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. However, defense assistance activities such as the United States Military Training Mission Saudi Arabia (USMTM) and the Office of the Program Manager, Saudi Arabian National Guard Modernization Program (OPM-SANG) at the Eskan Village complex outside of Riyadh remained in place.
The move was controversial, as some said that it was a needless contingent that only enraged Muslim populations, while others said that the United States were caving to the demands of Osama bin Laden.
this was widely reported at the time, but didn't make headlines, as we were all busy being distracted by Shock And Awe, which was in it's 8th day. that was intentional. had Bush done this in January of 2003, instead, it would have been seen precisely for what it was: appeasement. OBL must have been the happiest man alive. I tried as hard as I could... I really did... but I just couldn't get any of your LINKS to work. link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_Saudi_Arabia |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 4:56:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 1:42:08 GMT -5
Props for actually providing a link (finally)... now... how about showing the giving in to demands of hostage takers and/or terrorists that you suggest happened.
What you posted doesn't show that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 4:56:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 2:40:13 GMT -5
Btw why did the Foley's executioner have a British accent,? Because he's British. One of the scary things about ISIS is who is joining them. They are from all over the world and carry passports from their home country which can make it easier for them to bring their terrorism "home".
|
|
Jaguar
Administrator
Fear does not stop death. It stops life.
Joined: Dec 20, 2011 6:07:45 GMT -5
Posts: 50,108
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IZlZ65.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Text Color: 290066
|
Post by Jaguar on Aug 21, 2014 3:11:40 GMT -5
Btw why did the Foley's executioner have a British accent,? Because he's British. One of the scary things about ISIS is who is joining them. They are from all over the world and carry passports from their home country which can make it easier for them to bring their terrorism "home".
I was thinking that too, dayum. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 4:56:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 3:23:17 GMT -5
Because he's British. One of the scary things about ISIS is who is joining them. They are from all over the world and carry passports from their home country which can make it easier for them to bring their terrorism "home".
I was thinking that too, dayum.I know.  Like Spellbound454 said a few hundred are thought to be British, some American, and then the charming Australian dude that lets his child hold severed heads.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2014 11:49:08 GMT -5
ISIS wants a war. if we give it to them, we are playing right into their hands.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2014 11:50:00 GMT -5
Props for actually providing a link (finally)... now... how about showing the giving in to demands of hostage takers and/or terrorists that you suggest happened. What you posted doesn't show that. this is why i didn't post the link, Richard. i provided you everything i needed to support my statement in the bolded post. if you need some direction here, try looking at the specific statements about Osama Bin Laden in that post. his KEY DEMAND was that we get out of Mecca. what did we do in the first month of the invasion of Iraq? we got out of Mecca. we gave into the key demand of the world's most wanted terrorist. those are the facts. interpret them as you like. if you don't want to call giving in to the top demand of the most wanted terrorist in our lifetimes "appeasement" of an almost Chamberlain proportion, that is your prerogative. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2014 11:58:47 GMT -5
by the way, i can come up with many examples of appeasing terrorists. i just gave you the most glaring and galling one. if you would rather get them from someone you might conceivably believe, i would suggest reading "Dying To Win" by Pape.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 21, 2014 12:19:03 GMT -5
ISIS wants a war. if we give it to them, we are playing right into their hands. I don't disagree that they do. However they also may just warrant one. In fact, they are now de facto at war with at least two of their neighbors as it is.
Their neighbors may just need some help. I don't come to this thought lightly, and am still not sure how far I would wish to go. I don't believe they have the staying power or popularity to really conquer the Levant. However it is becoming apparent that they do have the strength to be a major PITA for some time to come.
I don't mean to echo the usual war mongering chicken littles, but if they are allowed to consolidate their gains they can really cause some harm. Their neighbors should be "encouraged" to exterminate them, imo.
since 911 my position has been and will continue to be that if we are dealing with foreign nationals that are not supported by governments, there is no justification for "WAR". this should be conducted as a law enforcement activity. you find your suspects, and you go and apprehend them. if you can't do it civilly, you do it by force. but capturing suspects is not a military activity. it might be PARAMILITARY- and i have no objection to that idea. in fact, i think it would be very wise to come up with a branch or division of the military that is entirely made up of these types of people- stealthy, and cellular. if you look at terrorism in the US, what is the typical response? is it military? if you look at the typical results, are they better or worse than Iraq? i think both answers are really obvious. i find it deeply disturbing that this is not the way MOST people think. |
|
