The World has been castrated

greenblood

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/03/watch-terrorism-expert-school-donald-trump-his-calls-torture

So I guess we need to be accepting and kind. That will make the terrorists stop...

Certain people just shouldn't reproduce.

PostGameOrangeSlices

"Terrorist expert"

LOL

so the reason terrorists are terrorists is because we condemn them for committing acts of terror, according to this fucking mouth breather...

it has nothing to do with terrorists being a part of a death cult where heaven is the end reward for committing acts of terrorism...

GreenRiverGatorz

Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.

What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.

PostGameOrangeSlices

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.

What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.

there will always been collateral involved. the difference is that the US doesn't intend to kill non-combatants, it's an unfortunate reality of warfare. especially when terrorists often hide behind innocents...

on the other hand, collateral damage is entire purpose of carrying out terror attacks.

you can't just do nothing in return when a violent group attacks your civilian population. and you certainly can't give these groups a free pass into your country

GreenRiverGatorz

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.

What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.

there will always been collateral involved. the difference is that the US doesn't intend to kill non-combatants, it's an unfortunate reality of warfare. especially when terrorists often hide behind innocents...

on the other hand, collateral damage is entire purpose of carrying out terror attacks.

you can't just do nothing in return when a violent group attacks your civilian population. and you certainly can't give these groups a free pass into your country

I don't disagree, but the asymmetry of the situation highlights just how difficult of a crisis this is. We have to have a heavy hand as we're fighting insurgents, but we also have to be cognizant of the fact that if not carried out tactically enough, our attacks could create more terrorists than they eliminate. And then there's the issue of many young Syrians, Iraqis, Libyans, etc. turning to ISIS because they have no other economic prospects. Obviously those countries need to be rebuilt to the point where jihad isn't the only feasible career path, but how do we accomplish that? Especially when our last couple "rebuilding efforts" have been such resounding failures.

greenblood

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.

What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.

Collateral damage is a horrible deal, but you can't defeat ISIS one by one. That's like trying to stop a dam collapse with duct tape. You need to go full force. Citizens in the area really have no choice. They need to GTFO. Reason being, either they stay and be collateral damage, or with no air strikes, they eventually become sex slaves or labor slaves for the growing ISIS or of course, executed.

But again, we can listen to the expert and play nice, and let them infiltrate our defenses internally. I'd rather actually do something about it.

Hippopeteamus

GreenRiverGatorz said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.

What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.

there will always been collateral involved. the difference is that the US doesn't intend to kill non-combatants, it's an unfortunate reality of warfare. especially when terrorists often hide behind innocents...

on the other hand, collateral damage is entire purpose of carrying out terror attacks.

you can't just do nothing in return when a violent group attacks your civilian population. and you certainly can't give these groups a free pass into your country

I don't disagree, but the asymmetry of the situation highlights just how difficult of a crisis this is. We have to have a heavy hand as we're fighting insurgents, but we also have to be cognizant of the fact that if not carried out tactically enough, our attacks could create more terrorists than they eliminate. And then there's the issue of many young Syrians, Iraqis, Libyans, etc. turning to ISIS because they have no other economic prospects. Obviously those countries need to be rebuilt to the point where jihad isn't the only feasible career path, but how do we accomplish that? Especially when our last couple "rebuilding efforts" have been such resounding failures.

And unfortunately I don't think the American people are willing to send in tens of thousands of troops for 15-25 years, which might be what is required.

greenblood

GreenRiverGatorz said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.

What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.

there will always been collateral involved. the difference is that the US doesn't intend to kill non-combatants, it's an unfortunate reality of warfare. especially when terrorists often hide behind innocents...

on the other hand, collateral damage is entire purpose of carrying out terror attacks.

you can't just do nothing in return when a violent group attacks your civilian population. and you certainly can't give these groups a free pass into your country

I don't disagree, but the asymmetry of the situation highlights just how difficult of a crisis this is. We have to have a heavy hand as we're fighting insurgents, but we also have to be cognizant of the fact that if not carried out tactically enough, our attacks could create more terrorists than they eliminate. And then there's the issue of many young Syrians, Iraqis, Libyans, etc. turning to ISIS because they have no other economic prospects. Obviously those countries need to be rebuilt to the point where jihad isn't the only feasible career path, but how do we accomplish that? Especially when our last couple "rebuilding efforts" have been such resounding failures.

That's exactly what is a happening now. Sniper bombing isn't working

PostGameOrangeSlices

GreenRiverGatorz said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.

What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.

there will always been collateral involved. the difference is that the US doesn't intend to kill non-combatants, it's an unfortunate reality of warfare. especially when terrorists often hide behind innocents...

on the other hand, collateral damage is entire purpose of carrying out terror attacks.

you can't just do nothing in return when a violent group attacks your civilian population. and you certainly can't give these groups a free pass into your country

I don't disagree, but the asymmetry of the situation highlights just how difficult of a crisis this is. We have to have a heavy hand as we're fighting insurgents, but we also have to be cognizant of the fact that if not carried out tactically enough, our attacks could create more terrorists than they eliminate. And then there's the issue of many young Syrians, Iraqis, Libyans, etc. turning to ISIS because they have no other economic prospects. Obviously those countries need to be rebuilt to the point where jihad isn't the only feasible career path, but how do we accomplish that? Especially when our last couple "rebuilding efforts" have been such resounding failures.

I hate to say it, but you let them sort their own mess out. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire after WW1, along with European meddling in the Middle East, is the root cause of many of these issues. Why the fuck should people in the Middle East care about their country when their borders were created by the English and the French? They are more loyal to their local tribe than they are to their state, by a huge margin.

So what should we do? We should not topple evil, yet stable, dictatorships. When you do, you get even worse shit like ISIS and the Libyan civil war. We should support the most rational parties in the region, like the Kurds.

And either way, the Wahhabists will still fucking hate us.

Kaepsknee

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.

What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.

there will always been collateral involved. the difference is that the US doesn't intend to kill non-combatants, it's an unfortunate reality of warfare. especially when terrorists often hide behind innocents...

on the other hand, collateral damage is entire purpose of carrying out terror attacks.

you can't just do nothing in return when a violent group attacks your civilian population. and you certainly can't give these groups a free pass into your country

That absolute statement is Bullshit.

greenblood

Hippopeteamus said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.

What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.

there will always been collateral involved. the difference is that the US doesn't intend to kill non-combatants, it's an unfortunate reality of warfare. especially when terrorists often hide behind innocents...

on the other hand, collateral damage is entire purpose of carrying out terror attacks.

you can't just do nothing in return when a violent group attacks your civilian population. and you certainly can't give these groups a free pass into your country

I don't disagree, but the asymmetry of the situation highlights just how difficult of a crisis this is. We have to have a heavy hand as we're fighting insurgents, but we also have to be cognizant of the fact that if not carried out tactically enough, our attacks could create more terrorists than they eliminate. And then there's the issue of many young Syrians, Iraqis, Libyans, etc. turning to ISIS because they have no other economic prospects. Obviously those countries need to be rebuilt to the point where jihad isn't the only feasible career path, but how do we accomplish that? Especially when our last couple "rebuilding efforts" have been such resounding failures.

And unfortunately I don't think the American people are willing to send in tens of thousands of troops for 15-25 years, which might be what is required.

You don't send in 10,000 troops, that's the problem. You send in 50,000 troops, Spain sends in 50,000 troops, UK sends in 50,000 troops, and France sends in 50,000 troops. You send these troops in after you collectively carpet bomb the area to lower the amount of resistance you'll receive.

Sending in a thousand here, a thousand there, is what drags a war on. You drop the hammer, this thing is done within a year.

PostGameOrangeSlices

salemcoog said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.

What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.

there will always been collateral involved. the difference is that the US doesn't intend to kill non-combatants, it's an unfortunate reality of warfare. especially when terrorists often hide behind innocents...

on the other hand, collateral damage is entire purpose of carrying out terror attacks.

you can't just do nothing in return when a violent group attacks your civilian population. and you certainly can't give these groups a free pass into your country

That absolute statement is Bullshit.

Thanks for the enlightening rebuttal...

GreenRiverGatorz

greenblood said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.

What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.

there will always been collateral involved. the difference is that the US doesn't intend to kill non-combatants, it's an unfortunate reality of warfare. especially when terrorists often hide behind innocents...

on the other hand, collateral damage is entire purpose of carrying out terror attacks.

you can't just do nothing in return when a violent group attacks your civilian population. and you certainly can't give these groups a free pass into your country

I don't disagree, but the asymmetry of the situation highlights just how difficult of a crisis this is. We have to have a heavy hand as we're fighting insurgents, but we also have to be cognizant of the fact that if not carried out tactically enough, our attacks could create more terrorists than they eliminate. And then there's the issue of many young Syrians, Iraqis, Libyans, etc. turning to ISIS because they have no other economic prospects. Obviously those countries need to be rebuilt to the point where jihad isn't the only feasible career path, but how do we accomplish that? Especially when our last couple "rebuilding efforts" have been such resounding failures.

That's exactly what is a happening now. Sniper bombing isn't working

Which is really something only military experts can accurately comment on. It would seem that our drone and surveillance technology should have progressed to the point where we can take out targets without killing innocents. Yet time and time again we are finding that collateral damage is still occurring. Hell, it was just six months ago that we accidentally took out a Doctors Without Borders hospital. Is our technology still not developed enough to avoid these situations? Are these just cases of incompetence on the parts of the military personnel carrying out the attacks?

I don't pretend to know what the answer is, or what the best approach going forward is. It's an extremely complex foreign policy issue, and I'm not convinced it's one we'll ever solve. It may take generations for ISIS and other violent jihadist groups to die off on their own.

greenblood

salemcoog said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.

What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.

there will always been collateral involved. the difference is that the US doesn't intend to kill non-combatants, it's an unfortunate reality of warfare. especially when terrorists often hide behind innocents...

on the other hand, collateral damage is entire purpose of carrying out terror attacks.

you can't just do nothing in return when a violent group attacks your civilian population. and you certainly can't give these groups a free pass into your country

That absolute statement is Bullshit.

Name one war where there wasn't some form of collateral damage...

Thought so

priapism

Drumpf seems like he's ready to adopt Sharia Law. Praise Allah.

greenblood

GreenRiverGatorz said:

greenblood said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.

What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.

there will always been collateral involved. the difference is that the US doesn't intend to kill non-combatants, it's an unfortunate reality of warfare. especially when terrorists often hide behind innocents...

on the other hand, collateral damage is entire purpose of carrying out terror attacks.

you can't just do nothing in return when a violent group attacks your civilian population. and you certainly can't give these groups a free pass into your country

I don't disagree, but the asymmetry of the situation highlights just how difficult of a crisis this is. We have to have a heavy hand as we're fighting insurgents, but we also have to be cognizant of the fact that if not carried out tactically enough, our attacks could create more terrorists than they eliminate. And then there's the issue of many young Syrians, Iraqis, Libyans, etc. turning to ISIS because they have no other economic prospects. Obviously those countries need to be rebuilt to the point where jihad isn't the only feasible career path, but how do we accomplish that? Especially when our last couple "rebuilding efforts" have been such resounding failures.

That's exactly what is a happening now. Sniper bombing isn't working

Which is really something only military experts can accurately comment on. It would seem that our drone and surveillance technology should have progressed to the point where we can take out targets without killing innocents. Yet time and time again we are finding that collateral damage is still occurring. Hell, it was just six months ago that we accidentally took out a Doctors Without Borders hospital. Is our technology still not developed enough to avoid these situations? Are these just cases of incompetence on the parts of the military personnel carrying out the attacks?

I don't pretend to know what the answer is, or what the best approach going forward is. It's an extremely complex foreign policy issue, and I'm not convinced it's one we'll ever solve. It may take generations for ISIS and other violent jihadist groups to die off on their own.

It's a religious war. You think, they'll just die naturally? WTF? This is built in to their radical religion. This isn't going to stop until they are neutralized.

Hippopeteamus

greenblood said:

Hippopeteamus said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.

What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.

there will always been collateral involved. the difference is that the US doesn't intend to kill non-combatants, it's an unfortunate reality of warfare. especially when terrorists often hide behind innocents...

on the other hand, collateral damage is entire purpose of carrying out terror attacks.

you can't just do nothing in return when a violent group attacks your civilian population. and you certainly can't give these groups a free pass into your country

I don't disagree, but the asymmetry of the situation highlights just how difficult of a crisis this is. We have to have a heavy hand as we're fighting insurgents, but we also have to be cognizant of the fact that if not carried out tactically enough, our attacks could create more terrorists than they eliminate. And then there's the issue of many young Syrians, Iraqis, Libyans, etc. turning to ISIS because they have no other economic prospects. Obviously those countries need to be rebuilt to the point where jihad isn't the only feasible career path, but how do we accomplish that? Especially when our last couple "rebuilding efforts" have been such resounding failures.

And unfortunately I don't think the American people are willing to send in tens of thousands of troops for 15-25 years, which might be what is required.

You don't send in 10,000 troops, that's the problem. You send in 50,000 troops, Spain sends in 50,000 troops, UK sends in 50,000 troops, and France sends in 50,000 troops. You send these troops in after you collectively carpet bomb the area to lower the amount of resistance you'll receive.

Sending in a thousand here, a thousand there, is what drags a war on. You drop the hammer, this thing is done within a year.

I agree, when I said tens of thousands I wasn't thinking 10k but more like 35k-75k. I am unsure that you could be done in a year, however. You have to establish a somewhat stable government, military, police force, economy, and education system. The real problem would not be suppressing the militants and terrorists, but leaving a situation where these groups did not just arise again within an unstable situation where they could flourish.

Swaye

salemcoog said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.

What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.

there will always been collateral involved. the difference is that the US doesn't intend to kill non-combatants, it's an unfortunate reality of warfare. especially when terrorists often hide behind innocents...

on the other hand, collateral damage is entire purpose of carrying out terror attacks.

you can't just do nothing in return when a violent group attacks your civilian population. and you certainly can't give these groups a free pass into your country

That absolute statement is Bullshit.

Nevermind.

greenblood

Hippopeteamus said:

greenblood said:

Hippopeteamus said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.

What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.

there will always been collateral involved. the difference is that the US doesn't intend to kill non-combatants, it's an unfortunate reality of warfare. especially when terrorists often hide behind innocents...

on the other hand, collateral damage is entire purpose of carrying out terror attacks.

you can't just do nothing in return when a violent group attacks your civilian population. and you certainly can't give these groups a free pass into your country

I don't disagree, but the asymmetry of the situation highlights just how difficult of a crisis this is. We have to have a heavy hand as we're fighting insurgents, but we also have to be cognizant of the fact that if not carried out tactically enough, our attacks could create more terrorists than they eliminate. And then there's the issue of many young Syrians, Iraqis, Libyans, etc. turning to ISIS because they have no other economic prospects. Obviously those countries need to be rebuilt to the point where jihad isn't the only feasible career path, but how do we accomplish that? Especially when our last couple "rebuilding efforts" have been such resounding failures.

And unfortunately I don't think the American people are willing to send in tens of thousands of troops for 15-25 years, which might be what is required.

You don't send in 10,000 troops, that's the problem. You send in 50,000 troops, Spain sends in 50,000 troops, UK sends in 50,000 troops, and France sends in 50,000 troops. You send these troops in after you collectively carpet bomb the area to lower the amount of resistance you'll receive.

Sending in a thousand here, a thousand there, is what drags a war on. You drop the hammer, this thing is done within a year.

I agree, when I said tens of thousands I wasn't thinking 10k but more like 35k-75k. I am unsure that you could be done in a year, however. You have to establish a somewhat stable government, military, police force, economy, and education system. The real problem would not be suppressing the militants and terrorists, but leaving a situation where these groups did not just arise again within an unstable situation where they could flourish.

You need to back it up, with a rotating national defense once the war is over. You provide the area with a military consisting of multiple country forces working under direction of the new government. You gradually build the new governments military to defend future insurgents. That may take 10-15 years, agreed. But it's done through a rotating force of multiple countries, so the individual contributions of each country is limited. Unlike in Iraq where the US was doing all the heavy lifting, and another country world occasionally give us a spot. This needs to be a cooperative effort by multiple countries, and all need to contribute more than what was contributed before.

You then provide a period of time, where an attack on them is an attack on everybody. So if insurgents come back down the road, you bring the hammer again, before they have enough time to mobilize like ISIS has done now.

This minimal soldier and bombing brigade only gives these lunatics hope. You crush ISIS if you show them that they have no chance. You drop the hammer, your drop the hammer, and you drop the hammer. Eventually, they fall in line, because there is no other option.

Kaepsknee

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

salemcoog said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Yeah, that's a bunch of nonsense. I don't believe for a second that anyone in the Middle East is committing themselves to violent jihad because of the offensive words of Donald Trump.

What does propel otherwise normal third-world Muslims (who haven't already joined ISIS because of economic reasons) to jihad, however, is when their family members are killed as collateral damage in air strikes carried out by the West.

there will always been collateral involved. the difference is that the US doesn't intend to kill non-combatants, it's an unfortunate reality of warfare. especially when terrorists often hide behind innocents...

on the other hand, collateral damage is entire purpose of carrying out terror attacks.

you can't just do nothing in return when a violent group attacks your civilian population. and you certainly can't give these groups a free pass into your country

That absolute statement is Bullshit.

Thanks for the enlightening rebuttal...

If you truly believe that the US doesn't or hasn't strike knowing there will be collateral damage. I can't help you.

RaceBannon

If you are looking for things we do that piss of the terrorists look no further than their own words. Our fancy modern ways and gays and women are an abomination to the religion of peace. We have a female Secretary of State - more than one. We have gay marriage. We have a gay President.

Nobody seriously goes around saying we need to stone gays and put women in burkahs so we don't offend anyone. That would be insane.

So is blaming the stupid shit the left blames.

As for war, if we aren't in it to win it then no thanks. I've learned my lesson. If we had all been alive in WW2 and could follow it on TV or the internet we'd be sick and throwing up at (fuck - shaking and vomiting) at what the allies did to the axis to keep the axis from doing it to us.

And we are still there to keep the peace

If we aren't going to do that against these rag head pieces of shit then I am OUT! No more half wars for me. I don't think collateral damage is the cause of terrorism but I don't think we need to inflict it for no good reason either