• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jordan Unleashes Wrath on ISIS

Why does he need to offer a disclaimer about ancient deeds of Christians before he can condemn the current actions of radical Islam? Why does anyone?

That is a good question. I wonder why Islam can't be discussed without bringing up other religions. I don't see criticism of Christians countered with, "yeah, the Muslims did this though."
 
That is a good question. I wonder why Islam can't be discussed without bringing up other religions. I don't see criticism of Christians countered with, "yeah, the Muslims did this though."
I asked that same question in a different thread just a little while ago.

Can you think of a single instance where Christians were being taken to task for something that other Christians did but with the precursor... "let us not forget about the beheading carried out in the name of Islam..."

I'm not one for absolutes but it has literally NEVER happened.
 
That is a good question. I wonder why Islam can't be discussed without bringing up other religions. I don't see criticism of Christians countered with, "yeah, the Muslims did this though."

Islam is a politically correct religion. I think it has a lot to do with Muslim acceptance of socialism.
 
I really like the little King. He makes a very intelligent and educated impression.

But not a physical one?
 
If you go around picking fights sooner or later someone is going to kick your ass. ISIS is a bunch of retards.

Jordan's ability to fight ISIS is dependent on how much support the US and UK gives them.
 
I never said she was.

erh, yeah. You accused her of lying. If you want to say that you didn't intend to and take that back, then that would be a fine and gentlemanly thing for you to do.
 
I really like the little King. He makes a very intelligent and educated impression.

:raises eyebrow: the "little king" passed US Army Special Forces Assessment and Selection, and flies combat aircraft. I recommend you not call him that to his face.
 
BULL****!

Obama campaigned on some crap about how terrorism had been defeated, he could not bring himself, and still can't, t say benghazi was terrorism. He has downplayed "terror" throughout his administration and if he, the greatest liar in history cannot come reasonably close to saying "let us not judge all of Islam" instead of blathering about Christian atrocities and whatever else he was getting at. To make that point you make that point, not use that point to excuse or downplay what Americans are seeing on their TV's on a daily basis.

He was the one who has been playing to the peace prize, making nice with these ****s, but when you look at his record, America started the war on terror in ONE country, became two under Bush and is now seven countries under Obama.

Yeah, oh, yeah, he needs there to be no terrorists all right, just like he needs you to believe you can "keep you plan" or "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

This is not a presidency, it is a circus side show

That's just not true.

I expect I know more about his campaign, since I watched every debate (among the Dems, among the Repubs, and between Obama and McCain), as well as watched almost every one of Obama's campaign speeches. I'm a political junkie and I couldn't help but soak in ALL of what he was about in the campaign.

I especially love it when progressives are dismayed about his being a turncoat and not getting us out of Afghanistan right away and not being anti-war. Anyone who paid attention to his campaign would have known that he was in favor of the Afghanistan War, but against the Iraq War (while recognizing we couldn't abruptly leave Iraq at that time).

Example (Candidate Obama, 2007):
“When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/2008-obama-on-terrorism/

And in 2008:
After weeks of discourse surrounding the policy, Obama said there was "misreporting" of his comments, stating that, "I never called for an invasion of Pakistan or Afghanistan." He clarified that rather than a surge in the number of troops in Iraq, there needed to be a "diplomatic surge" and that if there were "actionable intelligence reports" showing al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, the U.S. troops as a last resort should enter and try to capture terrorists. That would happen, he added, only if "the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling" to go after the terrorists.
Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obama recognized, as I and most other reasonable people do, that Iraq was not part of the terrorism problem. It was always Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He pursued terrorists MUCH more than the prior administration, not being distracted by invading countries having nothing to do with 9/11, and spending a trillion dollars in the process.

Then there's this about Bin Laden:
Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.
Bush, six months after 911. http://youtu.be/4PGmnz5Ow-o

Republicans are big on trying to rewrite history.
 
erh, yeah. You accused her of lying. If you want to say that you didn't intend to and take that back, then that would be a fine and gentlemanly thing for you to do.

I'm good like I am, but thanks. I usually issue the same amount of respect I receive from a person.
 
erh, yeah. You accused her of lying. If you want to say that you didn't intend to and take that back, then that would be a fine and gentlemanly thing for you to do.

Thanks. :kissy:
 
I really like the little King. He makes a very intelligent and educated impression.

Gee... could it be the fact his mother is British, his education took place in the UK and US. Then went to Sandhurst (UK's West Point) and spent 2 years in the British Armed Forces and then other US military training courses.
 
It's beyond comprehension. To compare Medieval times to today just makes you wonder what kind of muck is rattling around in that brainpan of his.

Are you sure he's just referencing the Crusades? Syria and Lebanon has had issues with Christian militias over the past 40 years.. In Syria right now Popular Committees (which are now part of Syrian Army's National Defense Force) is the backbone that kept Assad from falling in 2013. Popular Committees are local defense forces (communities) who have been fighting ISIS since late 2012.. Assad arms them and pays them. They are just as ruthless as ISIS.

Since NDF is pro-Assad, US hates them despite the fact they are on the front lines everyday fighting ISIS and their partners. West ****ed up Syria badly and now it's coming home to roost. Should have actually listen to Assad when he said he was fighting foreigners (Al-Qaeda) instead of ignoring that, and then arming the foreigners.
 
Jordan's Muslims are certainly helping to stop ISIS. That is what this thread is about. Sometimes I wonder if people even bother to read. They are so stuck on their ideas that any news that disputes them is thrown out the window. You are wrong and Muslims are proving it daily.

Actually, Jordan ignored ISIS training camps in Jordan when the US was training them. But hey.. nothing like creating your own new enemy. Typical American policy.
 
That's just not true.

I expect I know more about his campaign, since I watched every debate (among the Dems, among the Repubs, and between Obama and McCain), as well as watched almost every one of Obama's campaign speeches. I'm a political junkie and I couldn't help but soak in ALL of what he was about in the campaign.

I especially love it when progressives are dismayed about his being a turncoat and not getting us out of Afghanistan right away and not being anti-war. Anyone who paid attention to his campaign would have known that he was in favor of the Afghanistan War, but against the Iraq War (while recognizing we couldn't abruptly leave Iraq at that time).

Example (Candidate Obama, 2007):
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/2008-obama-on-terrorism/

And in 2008:
Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obama recognized, as I and most other reasonable people do, that Iraq was not part of the terrorism problem. It was always Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He pursued terrorists MUCH more than the prior administration, not being distracted by invading countries having nothing to do with 9/11, and spending a trillion dollars in the process.

Then there's this about Bin Laden:
Bush, six months after 911. http://youtu.be/4PGmnz5Ow-o

Republicans are big on trying to rewrite history.



Oh yes it is....

You have more facts, but are highly biased. i put you clearly in the Gruber camp, complete with cool aid and the plan you kept.

The the first sign of an Obamahead is when they "explain" what the president really meant, as if the greatest communicator since regan needs explaining.

Frankly, I think he's losing it...Christian atrocities indeed, I am sure the American fighting man will keep that in mind when hunting down and killing these non Muslim non terrorists.....

Again, if this prick was around in 1939 he'd be talking about the Romans instead of Nazis
 
Last edited:
Whatever.

NEVER believe ANYTHING from a major news source...especially about military matters.

What kind of air strikes? How many planes were involved? What types of planes were involved? What targets did they hit? How heavily defended were they? How much ordinance was dropped? How much of it actually hit the target?

This could be anything from a large scale strike on military targets to a couple of older fighter/bombers dropping a few bombs on a lightly defended house.

And remember, most news people are incredibly ignorant about military equipment and tactics. Always get confirmation from other sources before you believe ANY details they give out.
 
Whatever.

NEVER believe ANYTHING from a major news source...especially about military matters.

What kind of air strikes? How many planes were involved? What types of planes were involved? What targets did they hit? How heavily defended were they? How much ordinance was dropped? How much of it actually hit the target?

This could be anything from a large scale strike on military targets to a couple of older fighter/bombers dropping a few bombs on a lightly defended house.

And remember, most news people are incredibly ignorant about military equipment and tactics. Always get confirmation from other sources before you believe ANY details they give out.

Reports I have seen say 20 F-16's were used, striking the capital of ISIS, raqqa.
Remember, this is an arab military Im not expecting to get all of the details, why do they need to be provided?
 
Reports I have seen say 20 F-16's were used, striking the capital of ISIS, raqqa.
Remember, this is an arab military Im not expecting to get all of the details, why do they need to be provided?

Why?

Because obviously the Jordanian government wants to look tough after their pilot got burned alive.

But there is a huge difference between bombing useless, lightly defended targets so they can tell the world they 'struck back' and actually taking on ISIS head on.
And if it was 20 F-16's, how did they attack? Was it dropping bombs from 20,000+ feet (where they are safe from ISIS who have few if any guided AA missiles to my knowledge). What kind of bombs? Are they just dropping iron bombs on a town from 5 miles up? Or are they precision bombs?
I simply wish to know how serious they really are about this.
Dropping dumb bombs from 20-30,000 feet on a large town is hardly going to do much but kill a lot of innocent civilians.

And if these attacks are going to continue, are they going to be in this strength because 20 F-16's represents a large percentage of those that Jordan has? Or will the strikes become token gestures and this first strike (if true) was just to make a statement?


Plus, major media sources are traditionally useless when it comes to military reporting.

Why people believe so readily what they are told by major media sources - especially about military matters which are filtered through government sources - is totally beyond me. I believe almost NOTHING they say until I see unbiased confirmation.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom