Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 152

Thread: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

  1. #111
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,291

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Stupid 25 minute edit timer.


    that's because you take too long to post.




    Reading through your responses again you make assumptions regarding my stance that simply are not true, I am not "Gung-Ho" or however you put it. I however see that what we did in the past has bore this fruit you speak of. Yes we backed the very people we are now fighting in Afghanistan and it would be easy and short sighted to say this however without mentioning the Cold War ramifications of the past.

    You speak to the west's involvment in the ME as the sole cause, as if radical Islam does not attack its own, as if Bin Laden for example states in his letter to America that Clinton gettin a hummer is one of the reasons they attack us, and for them to stop, we must "come to Islam"...


    There are many factors involved here, what I see a lack of however in your posts is the level of culpability of the other side. Perhaps you can speak to that as well.


    As for you quoting my response to 10, this simply was a like response to her statement:

    Everything we've done since all this began has strengthened our enemy, rather than weakening it.
    See you asked me how I "try not to do that".... lets re-read my statment:

    Quote Originally Posted by The Good Reverend
    if you can drop the poor me matyr act, no one as far as I can see, and certainly not I have accused you of blaming America. Perhaps you can not throw out baseless accusations, I know I try not to do things like that when I have no evidence of it.

    note the bolded part. I try not to call people out over emotions, or make baseless
    accusations against other posters. I look for evidence before I call them out as prevaricators or anti-america, or anything else.

    her post was a clear baseline for my astute response to her in kind.


    Regarding your ad-hominen response:

    Hell, I'm still waiting on you to offer an idea that consists of more than three sentences and doesn't involve criticizing someone else for not fixing the Middle East.

    I believe this would be false. I have stated in more than "3 sentences", over and over again, like you that we need to "take it to the terrorists". I have also explained in detail how a mini cold war with the UN, france, germany, over iraqi oil and the worlds largest embezzlement scheme helped set the stage for the players in this war to come together.

    I have also offered solutions in the past, and I see progress in Iraq, I see this war as winding down, I have friends serving in both theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan. I see victory. I agree with Obama that more troops are needed in afghanistan......

    More troops were needed on both fronts, Bush did not do this. A better strategy, IMO of a massive occupation would have shortened this war. There are many things we could have done better, the solution to islamic terrorist organizations though should work like this.


    Countries that harbor terrorists organizations should not be considered soverign, meaning that we should, could, and would land forces and support anywhere we deem it neccesary for the security of our people. Bush gave lip service to this. however he did not follow through. I am worried that Obama's assured pull back will only embolden the enemy at this point.

    Which this latter is your position, that we can't go around bombing the ME or some such policy of non-engagment. At this point that would be disasterous for the peoples of the ME, give carte blanche to the savage terrorists to create talibans, and other extreme forms of government, and a safe haven for those who would do us harm., This is no solution.


    Regarding the poor plight of the enemy. IIRC many of the 911 terrorists were highly educated. this is in stark contrast to your seemingly claim of poor uneducated people indoctrinated into islamic terrorism..


    Now I am no mathematician, but I count more than 3 sentences....
    Last edited by ReverendHellh0und; 01-12-09 at 08:54 AM.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  2. #112
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,255

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Is this going to be a conversation bet/ you and Lerxst, or can anyone get in this. If not, I'll shut up.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  3. #113
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,389

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Lerxst, I read you long post, and yes it's good to look at the past mistakes. But the mentality around here has been to use it as a political baseball bat to blacken the opponents eye. Frankly I don't think anyone's foreign policy has been worth copying, but I'm afraid that is exact what Obama will do. Playing appeaser will not win any foreign policy victories anymore than the use of force. Furthermore, dealing with a group of people that have "Destroy Israel" as the first bullet on their foreign policy agenda makes it rather difficult to sit down and talk. The corruption in our own govt has been a source for our foreign policy problems.
    If Obama makes the same mistakes as past Presidents then nothing will change. And I'm not convinced he won't. I simply hope he won't.
    *insert profound statement here*

  4. #114
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,389

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    that's because you take too long to post.

    Reading through your responses again you make assumptions regarding my stance that simply are not true, I am not "Gung-Ho" or however you put it.
    Our definition of Gung-Ho then is different. However later in this post I'll show you several examples within this thread of your expressing an attitude I consider to be Gung-Ho.

    I however see that what we did in the past has bore this fruit you speak of. Yes we backed the very people we are now fighting in Afghanistan and it would be easy and short sighted to say this however without mentioning the Cold War ramifications of the past.
    It's not just that, we have made several poor choices in the middle east, not the least of which is backing the wrong horse simply out of corporate/national greed. We've supported rebellions, coups, assassinations, wars, you name it.

    You speak to the west's involvment in the ME as the sole cause, as if radical Islam does not attack its own, as if Bin Laden for example states in his letter to America that Clinton gettin a hummer is one of the reasons they attack us, and for them to stop, we must "come to Islam"...
    I do no such thing. Where did I ever say that or even infer it? I think I was pretty clear about radical madrassas and mosques and clerics who pervert Islam. I think I was also clear about the living conditions of at risk Muslims that these cleric prey upon. About how these people suffer years of indoctrination under these religious zealots.

    Poor people with no hope are ripe for deliverance. When you look at the social and economic conditions of much of the middle east you see the historical impact of western influence. The economic disparity is a key example here given the nature of Islamic politics/rule. We, along with many European nations, drew up geographical boundaries and empowered leaders that were conducive to our desire to control the region. Whether we actually cared about the people of the region or not is irrelevant at this point, what followed was decades of brutal rule in many nations. We didn't know much of anything about how things ran over there. The social, religious, political, economic factors were of little consequence. We needed leaders who would keep resources open to western markets. We made sure they had plenty of weapons and plenty of western capital. What we didn't make sure of is how they used them. In an area so deeply ingrained with religious influence you can't just expect non-Muslim or even secular policy or influence to spread like freedom and democracy and that good stuff we believe in.

    We have been viewed, by many Muslims, as corrupting the fabric of the Islamic way of life with our influence in the middle east. When you come in and push the pendulum in one direction you are setting it up to swing the other way. We didn't even try to maintain a semblance of balance with our foreign policy. Ever. What we did, either unwittingly or with complete disregard, was create opportunity for radical Islam to foment because we (the west) simply didn't pay any attention to the way things were shaking out between the governments we backed and the people they were governing. Yes, radical Islamists were already there, we just made their jobs much easier.

    Their goal is to get us out of the middle east, and yes...to extract revenge for decades of what they consider horrible transgressions against their very way of life. Right or wrong, that is what it boils down to. It matters little that you or I don't see our actions as malevolent or harmful, they do.

    There are many factors involved here, what I see a lack of however in your posts is the level of culpability of the other side. Perhaps you can speak to that as well.
    We have done nothing but blame the Islamists. I can dogpile that all day long but then I would just sound like all the others on here. I have recognized their culpability in this situation several times. However the first step to fixing this is recognizing our own and changing how we do business over there.

    As for you quoting my response to 10, this simply was a like response to her statement:



    See you asked me how I "try not to do that".... lets re-read my statment:




    note the bolded part. I try not to call people out over emotions, or make baseless
    accusations against other posters. I look for evidence before I call them out as prevaricators or anti-america, or anything else.

    her post was a clear baseline for my astute response to her in kind.
    I wholeheartedly disagree with your description of how that went down and stand by my statement, but whatever. Obviously we won't reach an agreement here.

    Regarding your ad-hominen response:




    I believe this would be false. I have stated in more than "3 sentences", over and over again, like you that we need to "take it to the terrorists". I have also explained in detail how a mini cold war with the UN, france, germany, over iraqi oil and the worlds largest embezzlement scheme helped set the stage for the players in this war to come together.
    Let's take a look at a summary of your contribution here up to this point. Your individual posts are separated by ellipses but not numbered.
    Quote Originally Posted by Post by RHH in this thread
    Great job boys!
    ...........................
    I guess winning the war here is no longer in vogue
    ...........................
    nice 10, well while you surrender, thankfully most of us see this as a winnable war and something that needs to be done
    ............................
    I am concentrating on obliterating Al Qaeda. not too concerned about the whole "war on an ideology" angle
    ............................
    Hmm, Al Qaeda killed a member of my family and several friends, including NYPD and NYFD....


    I strongly disagree with you.



    Where you see futility, I see a target rich environment.
    ............................
    yeah well war is hell.... I for one do not want to see another attack on American soil, and breaking up Al Qaeda is a big part of that.
    ............................
    Muslims don't dig on swine those poor bastards
    ............................
    So shall we convert to islam as well? what else do you reccommend?
    ............................
    Nonsense, please show me with links and examples as to how al qaeda is strengthened.

    This is whiny liberal blame America nonsense, perhaps if they attacked your friends and family you would feel different. who knows.
    ..............................
    tell me why can't we win?
    ..............................
    because they did not hate us when they flew airplanes into our buildings
    ..............................
    I'd be more pissed at people who claim the same religion as me hiding behind my house launching attacks from my schools, shooting rockets from my churches....


    that's who I would blame.
    ................................
    ahh yes, lets praise him, praise the savior of America, lets praise him for bringing peace to the world... Lets praise him for ending war....

    Lets praise him for promising 30k more troops.... oh wait.
    ...................................
    that would make you a quitter and demonstrate the failure of "instant gratification"
    ..................................
    I would? actually I'd probably drag the terrorists who are launching rockets from my shed out into the street and hang them as a warning to all of them that this is what happens when you bring your little jihad to my schools, towns, churches, backyards
    ..........................................
    would you send them falafal and hookah? perhaps some lamb shemash
    .........................................
    You wouldnt? what would you do with the terrorists using your family as a shield?
    .........................................
    what about them terrorists using you as a shield? how long would you give them quarter?
    .........................................
    Seriously, you say killing these savages is bad, what is your solution.....



    and I did have a great lamb shemash the other night..... delicious.
    ............................................
    if you took them out first, you may not have to worry about the foreigners
    ...........................................
    it is our business.
    ...........................................
    so you believe we intefered without provocation?
    ...........................................
    Hear! hear! you want jihad, you got it.
    ...........................................
    no ****. it's called hyperbole..... if all my neighbors tolerated, some liked the terrorists and most feared them, stringing em up might just get me killed. And yes, these savages have no qualms about killing thier own. Which is another reason why dealing with it now is better than letting it fester and letting these people who have to live amongst this suffer in my opinion.
    .............................................
    very good so far.

    Here I must say I see an ambiguous ideal with no real solution. How do you propose we do that.

    We tried the "police action" method of Clinton, this partially, along with actions and inactions of previous administrations helped give us 911....


    if you can drop the poor me matyr act, no one as far as I can see, and certainly not I have accused you of blaming America. Perhaps you can not throw out baseless accusations, I know I try not to do things like that when I have no evidence of it.


    Given that the oil for food program had hussein and the UN, france, etc all getting huge kick backs while blaming the US for starving muslims in Iraq, could you explain how the status quo would help our image in the middle east.

    I see a lot of complaining again. However I would like to ask, how you see a solution, what would it entail?

    So far I got from you, and correct me if I am wrong, is that we are doing it wrong, we can not win.

    I heartily disagree, I cannot see us giving up and sucking our thumbs. see in your 1st paragraph you say we have to take it to them, now you say we can not win.

    Can you explain this?

    Again ambiguous in what we have to do. are you suggesting we go back to the clinton years of running from somalis and flacid responses to terrorist responses?

    How is this a solution?

    kinda a strawman, who is calling you a traitor?


    And once again, what is your actual solution. there is a lot of ambiguous general ideas, but no concrete solutions as usual.

    If you all think you can do it better, how come we have not heard how all these years?
    .................................................
    Is Isreal doing any of what you say above? can you provide links?

    Thanks.
    .................................................
    ah, ok. thanks.
    I see absolutely no great detail in any explanation you gave regarding a "mini-cold war" involving the Saddam, the U.N., France, et al. taking kickbacks. There is no detail at all, no explanation whatsoever. Are you talking about this thread? I would like to see your dissertation on this issue however so please link it for me. Not knowing the stage you set for this kind of rationale I can't comment on it to any great degree, but I have some serious reservations about it's validity. Regardless, in your posts I do see several examples of you dismissing history, being Gung-Ho, asking other posters for solutions while posting none of your own ideas, and baiting others with one liners. With exception of the two posts responding to me none of your posts were more than three sentences in length. None of your posts offered up anything resembling a solution or strategy for dealing with the problem of Islamic extremists.

    To be continued....
    *insert profound statement here*

  5. #115
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,389

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    I have also offered solutions in the past, and I see progress in Iraq, I see this war as winding down, I have friends serving in both theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan. I see victory. I agree with Obama that more troops are needed in afghanistan......
    That's great, but that doesn't help me in the context of this thread, which is what I was commenting on. In this post I see you still yet focused on the military facet of the issue. Could you link these solutions? It would help me to understand what you are thinking when you don't write it down.

    More troops were needed on both fronts, Bush did not do this. A better strategy, IMO of a massive occupation would have shortened this war.
    Possibly, more troops in Iraq from the beginning would have shortened this war. I'll agree. So does almost every military leader in the west. However, you are once again putting your focus on a military operation, not the problem of Islamic extremism. It's clear where your focus is. The stance I take is that your entire logic is flawed because I don't see you being critical of the fact that we invaded Iraq in the first place. Too few troops, not enough...it's irrelevant to the core issue of Islamic extremism. The invasion alone was a major catalyst for these organizations embarking upon an entirely new and widespread campaign of terror.

    There are many things we could have done better, the solution to islamic terrorist organizations though should work like this.

    Countries that harbor terrorists organizations should not be considered soverign, meaning that we should, could, and would land forces and support anywhere we deem it neccesary for the security of our people. Bush gave lip service to this. however he did not follow through. I am worried that Obama's assured pull back will only embolden the enemy at this point.
    So your first solution, your only solution, instead of examining the roots of the problem and developing an overarching strategy on foreign policy that addresses this, is to simply keep throwing money, troops, and bombs at the problem. I'm assuming this would include preemptive war?

    Which this latter is your position, that we can't go around bombing the ME or some such policy of non-engagment.
    Did you even read what I posted? I never said we can't engage the enemy. In fact I said we have to. However we have to use discretion and caution when we do so. Contrast to the completely bungled invasion of Iraq and our lack of commitment to the war in Afghanistan. A shift in our overall strategy regarding who we invade and why would help at this point. Do you have any idea what the invasion of Iraq has done to our standing with the Muslim community, or the international community as a whole?

    Anyway, let's talk about your strategy. What nations do you believe we should take military action against and why? On what scale should the operations be conducted? What is your follow up plan for after the shooting stops? What ideas do you have in terms of engaging the governments of these nations diplomatically? Any? How would you go about rallying the support of our allies in this endeavor? Would this be a unilateral series of operations?

    You have obviously thought about this, and I'm certainly a student of the issue, so I would think this will be a great topic of discussion.
    At this point that would be disasterous for the peoples of the ME, give carte blanche to the savage terrorists to create talibans, and other extreme forms of government, and a safe haven for those who would do us harm., This is no solution.
    Complete inaction would be disastrous. Now, I ask you, just how much good is our current policy doing the peoples of the middle east? How have we countered the root issues of radical Islam? You do realize that if we don't we will simply be forced to keep going back, keep shooting, keep bombing...right? So, where is the rest of your solution? Because what you have offered isn't even close to a solution, it's simply doing what we are doing now, which isn't working. Wash, rinse, repeat.

    Regarding the poor plight of the enemy. IIRC many of the 911 terrorists were highly educated. this is in stark contrast to your seemingly claim of poor uneducated people indoctrinated into islamic terrorism..
    What do you know about the Taliban? What do you know about Al Qaeda? Do you know how long it takes to indoctrinate and educate a radical Muslim to the point that they are proficient terrorists? Not just suicide bombers? Again, you are trying to oversimplify the situation in order to structure your argument into some form of validation for your point of view. There are literally tens of thousands of radical Islamic militants. The majority are in fact poor, undereducated men and boys who are recruited from the ghettos of the Middle East. If you don't know this then you have some reading to do.

    Now I am no mathematician, but I count more than 3 sentences....
    Maybe now.
    Last edited by Lerxst; 01-12-09 at 01:40 PM.
    *insert profound statement here*

  6. #116
    Professor
    Shewter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Puget Sound
    Last Seen
    02-21-13 @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,995

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Laila View Post
    We have no right to interfer with other countries, perhaps when we realize that the world would be much safer
    Yet if we don't interefere with other countries people look at us with those big puppy dog eyes and ask "Where was America!?!"

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'd rather be damned because I did something, wouldnt you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Don't apologize to me over that silly ****. I could care less if I can see the dust or not.
    Now apologize for apologizing!

  7. #117
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,291

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Reading through your post Lerxst, it is apparent that you choose to complain, but offer little in the way of solutions. Your verbosity does not equal validity. I asked you what your solution is, your response was you were unqualified. I on the otherhand have been offering my opinion on this matter, to which you attack with these little baiting snippets surrounded by "what I am not doing" nonsense. This is typical of the left wing intellectual, Something is wrong, but instead of offering a solution, lets complain, bait, and misconstrue reality for politics. Note in half of what you quoted me, you attributed an out of context position to them.

    But lets look,

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    That's great, but that doesn't help me in the context of this thread, which is what I was commenting on. In this post I see you still yet focused on the military facet of the issue. Could you link these solutions? It would help me to understand what you are thinking when you don't write it down.
    Once again, this should be a dialogue not you refusing to offer solutions, then chiding my solutions. So far I must assume you mean do nothing, since you are unable to articulate a different path.

    As for my position on this war in Iraq and the link to the oil for food program you are free to search these forums, it is not something I hide.




    Possibly, more troops in Iraq from the beginning would have shortened this war. I'll agree. So does almost every military leader in the west. However, you are once again putting your focus on a military operation, not the problem of Islamic extremism. It's clear where your focus is. The stance I take is that your entire logic is flawed because I don't see you being critical of the fact that we invaded Iraq in the first place. Too few troops, not enough...it's irrelevant to the core issue of Islamic extremism. The invasion alone was a major catalyst for these organizations embarking upon an entirely new and widespread campaign of terror.
    How would you address Islamic extremism? All I see is you attacking my solutions without any smidgeon of substance.

    Sure I get it, "war is not the answer", but we need to "Take the fight to the enemy" and other seemingly contradictory positions.

    New campaign of terror? Did you forget how islamic extremists attacked us on 911? Are you suggesting that if we did not go to war in iraq to fix a big issue, that they would be like "we got you back, even steven"?

    This is a puerile and rather ignorant position that you have taken.




    So your first solution, your only solution, instead of examining the roots of the problem and developing an overarching strategy on foreign policy that addresses this, is to simply keep throwing money, troops, and bombs at the problem. I'm assuming this would include preemptive war?
    Wait, are you now giving me my opinion then arguing it? Quote me where I stated it was the only problem and that all we need to do is throw troops and money at the problem?

    And your assumption indicates you did not read my previous posts, search this thread for sovereignty then try again.


    Did you even read what I posted? I never said we can't engage the enemy. In fact I said we have to. However we have to use discretion and caution when we do so. Contrast to the completely bungled invasion of Iraq and our lack of commitment to the war in Afghanistan. A shift in our overall strategy regarding who we invade and why would help at this point. Do you have any idea what the invasion of Iraq has done to our standing with the Muslim community, or the international community as a whole?

    Please give me an example of "discretion and caution", as you keep throwing out buzzwords and talking points, but lack substance as to thier meaning.



    Anyway, let's talk about your strategy. What nations do you believe we should take military action against and why? On what scale should the operations be conducted? What is your follow up plan for after the shooting stops? What ideas do you have in terms of engaging the governments of these nations diplomatically? Any? How would you go about rallying the support of our allies in this endeavor? Would this be a unilateral series of operations?
    Wow, so not only did you apply an opinion to me that I did not have, but now you want to redirect the conversation into this pidgeon hole?




    You need to firm up some of your opinions before you deflect onto a tangent.



    You have obviously thought about this, and I'm certainly a student of the issue, so I would think this will be a great topic of discussion.

    It would be. Though I think your method of expanding the discussion, dilutes this talk, lets stay focused, and even narrow it down in future posts to at least a single post response.



    Complete inaction would be disastrous. Now, I ask you, just how much good is our current policy doing the peoples of the middle east? How have we countered the root issues of radical Islam? You do realize that if we don't we will simply be forced to keep going back, keep shooting, keep bombing...right? So, where is the rest of your solution? Because what you have offered isn't even close to a solution, it's simply doing what we are doing now, which isn't working. Wash, rinse, repeat.

    I have offered exactly 100% more of a solution than you brother. I am happy to get into the diplomatic side of the conversation. Let me know which of these tangents you want to stay on.

    What do you know about the Taliban? What do you know about Al Qaeda? Do you know how long it takes to indoctrinate and educate a radical Muslim to the point that they are proficient terrorists? Not just suicide bombers? Again, you are trying to oversimplify the situation in order to structure your argument into some form of validation for your point of view. There are literally tens of thousands of radical Islamic militants. The majority are in fact poor, undereducated men and boys who are recruited from the ghettos of the Middle East. If you don't know this then you have some reading to do.
    Another tangent... Oh ok.... you are right, and I never denied that poor and destitute can be attracted to this islamic extremism. My point was that so could the rich and well to do..... which you seemed to gloss over.



    Maybe now.


    Baiting, fun.....



    Nah man, I simply respond to posts in kind. You get what you give.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  8. #118
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    02-13-09 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,942

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    I have a real problem with the "root cause(s)" fetish that dominates any discussion of Islamic terrorism.

    It just ain't possible to tie this one down. The terrorists themsevles cite all sorts of reasons, typically evolving as the basis for one reason disappears so something new becomes contemporary fashion.

    Typically, politicians and scholars boil the root cause of Islamic extremism down to the Israeli/Palestinian issue. But this doesn't explain the Islamist murder of, for example, 150,000 in Algeria over the last decade or two, the murder of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the brutal Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq.

    So, the real root problem in Islamic extremism is...Islam. Traditional and even mainstream islamic teaching promotes violence. Women are stoned to death and gays hang from the gallows...with the approving and sometimes enthusiastically cheering support of Muslims throughout the Middle East and Africa. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near-deafening silence of the Muslim majority against this barbarism is evidence enough that something is fundamentally wrong.

    Terrorism is just a manifestation of this disease.

  9. #119
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,389

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Reading through your post Lerxst, it is apparent that you choose to complain, but offer little in the way of solutions. Your verbosity does not equal validity. I asked you what your solution is, your response was you were unqualified. I on the otherhand have been offering my opinion on this matter, to which you attack with these little baiting snippets surrounded by "what I am not doing" nonsense. This is typical of the left wing intellectual, Something is wrong, but instead of offering a solution, lets complain, bait, and misconstrue reality for politics. Note in half of what you quoted me, you attributed an out of context position to them.
    I offered a substantial amount of information regarding what we have done wrong and how we can start to correct it, specifically regarding foreign policy. You are hung up on the military solution, I'm talking about overall, long term strategy.

    Now you are are all mad that I posted your comments in this thread and caught you flat footed. Your comments were a major series of one liners with little to no actual value to the debate. You said you weren't of a Gung-Ho mindset, I referenced your comments that show that you in fact are. You tried to say you gave a detailed explanation about this mini-cold war being waged by the French, Germans, and U.N. or something. This was your counter to my statement. I simply proved to you that you did no such thing. Don't get angry, just read your own posts before you try to pull one over on me. And I attributed none of your statements out of context. If you have a problem with how your one liners are interpreted I would suggest putting a little more time and effort into them. Now if you want to go back and give specific examples of where I used them out of context we can examine that. I'll show you where you are wrong in your own words.

    But lets look,
    Why not.

    Once again, this should be a dialogue not you refusing to offer solutions, then chiding my solutions. So far I must assume you mean do nothing, since you are unable to articulate a different path.
    You offered no solutions. You simply said we needed to increase troop strengths and invade nations that harbor terrorists. You show me where you offered anything other than this. I have at least provided basic, broad ideas of how we could engage high risk/at risk nations and assist in the effort to help counter the spread of radical Islam. In summary I talked about critically examining how we utilize foreign aid and trade agreements as well as taking a vocal position on the international stage even when it's critical of our allies. A reinvention of U.S. foreign policy that puts more weight into assisting in moderate, democratic reform as opposed to national/corporate interests and the western flow of resources would be a start. All of these things can have tremendous impact on the ground in nations we extend our influence into. If our foreign policy helps improve their daily living conditions and returns to them a sense of self-determination it will dramatically impact their willingness to blow themselves up. All you have to do is look at how we have impacted them with our past strategies to tell that we have to do something different. What I am suggesting is a pretty good start, at least according to the authors I have read.

    As for my position on this war in Iraq and the link to the oil for food program you are free to search these forums, it is not something I hide.
    No thank you. You tried to use it to counter me, holding it out as some kind of example of your substantial contribution to this discussion. I'll not give you the benefit of the doubt on this given your history here. The burden is on you to present, if you choose not to I'll simply dismiss you as being too lazy to do so or simply not caring to back up your position.

    How would you address Islamic extremism? All I see is you attacking my solutions without any smidgeon of substance.
    You gave no solution to attack. You have simply backed expanding the war. Nothing more. That is not a solution, there is no end game here. You don't seem to understand the problem with this kind of logic. I do. I have absolutely provided an explanation as to why your strategy won't work, prima facia evidence being that it hasn't worked in the last six years or so. This isn't all that hard. A "solution" implies there is an end game of some kind. Increasing troop strengths and invading other nations is a one dimensional methodology involving combat operations. Since you can't seem to provide anything other than this I am forced to wonder what your definition of "solution" really is.

    Sure I get it, "war is not the answer", but we need to "Take the fight to the enemy" and other seemingly contradictory positions.
    Invading Iraq wasn't the answer, fighting the Taliban obviously was the answer. Again, you try to make this so simple, but it's not. And that is where you stumble. We did some things right, and some things wrong. Afghanistan, in principle was the right thing to do. Our actual execution on the other hand has been sorely lacking. And like our involvement during the Soviet occupation of that nation, we are precariously close to screwing up the end game on this one as well. Our strategy for Afghanistan in both cases showed that we simply did not learn anything about our past failures. Dropping the ball there has set us back and resulted in the civilian population drifting back towards the fundamentalists for solutions. We created a vacuum and we didn't fill it properly. This is an example of failed foreign policy.

    Moving on, working hand in hand with foreign nations to combat the spread of active terror groups is one way of "taking the fight to the enemy." Joint military operations or simply helping develop a system of more moderate educational institutions are both examples, the key being the development of relationships that foster that kind of activity. Remember, this isn't always about military force. These nations are basically fighting an insurgency. And if you know anything about counter insurgency you know it's all about giving the population an alternative to the bad guys. Invasion and occupation is rarely a good answer as it creates more problems than it solves in a situation like this (extremist theology based militarism). Covert ops as well as surgical overt operations come to mind. Scalpel as opposed to a hatchet. Invading countries with no substantial link to supporting international terrorism not so much.

    New campaign of terror? Did you forget how islamic extremists attacked us on 911? Are you suggesting that if we did not go to war in iraq to fix a big issue, that they would be like "we got you back, even steven"?
    No I didn't. Do you not understand that the events of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq have almost nothing to do with one another, despite a desire from the right to make it seem so? The new campaign of terror is taking place in the middle east and is a direct result of our occupation of Iraq. Do you understand this? We added fuel to this fire and we opened up a brand new front that led to the rise of a new generation of Islamic militants in Iraq. Get it?

    This is a puerile and rather ignorant position that you have taken.
    No, the puerile and ignorant position would be associating me with arguments I haven't made or trying to argue against a position that I have never taken. It's clear you are having trouble comprehending the actual argument I'm making because it gets all blurry to you. I'm addressing the military, geopolitical, historical aspects of this issue and you are not for some reason. You seem to be stuck in the military side of it and are content to make accusations of complaining whenever I bring up the U.S. part of the problem. And that's okay, but it gets us nowhere.

    TBC...
    *insert profound statement here*

  10. #120
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,389

    Re: Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

    Wait, are you now giving me my opinion then arguing it? Quote me where I stated it was the only problem and that all we need to do is throw troops and money at the problem?
    How can I? You've offered nothing but this kind of response to the problem. Show me where you have offered anything else. When you say we need to put more troops into Iraq, which is what you said, by default that involves more money, more munitions. Does it not?

    And your assumption indicates you did not read my previous posts, search this thread for sovereignty then try again.
    Reverend Hellhound, not only did I read your posts, I pulled them ALL together and put them in one big post. I know exactly what you said. Your post containing the word sovereignty involved stripping it from nations that harbor terrorists and invading them as a solution. That is your opinion, I didn't give it to you, you stated it. I simply responded.


    Please give me an example of "discretion and caution", as you keep throwing out buzzwords and talking points, but lack substance as to thier meaning.
    I'm sorry that you can't understand what those words amount to in a military context. Seeing as we are both veterans I would assume you would get the context I was going for. Not sure what you did in the military, but from now on I'll assume you weren't combat arms.

    So let me break this down for you in terms that I think you'll get. When I say "discretion and caution" I am referring to overt and covert operation that do not involve the invasion and occupation of nations, operations that do not involve the destruction of large amounts civilian utilized infrastructure (power grids, communications centers, water treatment plants), and operations that are launched in response to reasonably good HUMINT. SIGINT, IMINT, and MASINT. Operations that by design contain the damage pattern to the target area and don't end up flattening whole sections of a neighborhood. Those kinds of operations.

    Wow, so not only did you apply an opinion to me that I did not have, but now you want to redirect the conversation into this pidgeon hole?
    What are you talking about? You said...
    There are many things we could have done better, the solution to islamic terrorist organizations though should work like this.

    Countries that harbor terrorists organizations should not be considered soverign, meaning that we should, could, and would land forces and support anywhere we deem it neccesary for the security of our people.
    THAT is your position, YOU stated it. You called it a "solution." What you described is nothing more than saying "if they harbor terrorists we invade whenever and wherever we feel it necessary." That's it. You described nothing more. Unilateral cowboy foreign policy that relies on a big stick. I asked you to clarify your position by explaining the rest of your "solution" because you don't have the best track record of actually spelling things out here. I see you didn't even try. How come that is?

    You need to firm up some of your opinions before you deflect onto a tangent.
    My opinions are firmed up just fine. The problem here for you is that you have yet to actually get around one of them. Once again, all you have done is accused me of complaining and not coming up with a "solution." I gave several examples of things we could do differently. For some reason they just aren't jumping off the page at you. That is not my problem. I don't have to ask you to go and search other threads to get to what I'm saying...I've posted it all out here in front of you. What exactly are you having a problem with? Spell it out and if I've addressed it in this thread, I'll walk you back through it. If you didn't understand what I posted, I'll break it down for you.

    It would be. Though I think your method of expanding the discussion, dilutes this talk, lets stay focused, and even narrow it down in future posts to at least a single post response.
    Well I suppose you shouldn't bring it up in the discussion if you're not prepared to at explain it. You used your "solution" to counter my argument. Excuse me for asking you to not be so simplistic since what you have proposed has already been tried and failed. Is it wrong for me to ask you what your plan consists of and how it's going to be somehow different?
    I have offered exactly 100% more of a solution than you brother. I am happy to get into the diplomatic side of the conversation. Let me know which of these tangents you want to stay on.
    Yeah, okay. So when I start asking you to provide at least as much detail as I have all of sudden I'm going off on a tangent. This discussion has evolved in a very relevant and on topic fashion. Just because I'm forcing you to step outside your one dimensional mind set on this issue does not mean I'm on a tangent or diluting the debate. It just means you don't want to go there, or you can't. Either one.

    You will hear about this elsewhere.

    Another tangent... Oh ok.... you are right, and I never denied that poor and destitute can be attracted to this islamic extremism. My point was that so could the rich and well to do..... which you seemed to gloss over.
    How did I gloss over it exactly? You, in your typical fashion, were simplifying and limiting your remarks in order to counter me in some way. I say poor, you say rich. You took one example over the history of this problem, narrowed it to less than two dozen people and said...
    Quote Originally Posted by RHH said
    Regarding the poor plight of the enemy. IIRC many of the 911 terrorists were highly educated. this is in stark contrast to your seemingly claim of poor uneducated people indoctrinated into islamic terrorism..
    How is that in anyway a "stark contrast" to my assertion that the poor and undereducated are prime targets for indoctrination to the radical Islamic movement? What was the point of your comment? Just so you would have something to say back to me? Were you simply trying to be argumentative? I am fully aware that many of the 9/11 hijackers were well educated. So? What does that have to do with the fact that thousands of Muslims living in middle eastern ghettos are being recruited by militant clerics? That some well educated Muslims are also being recruited? Okay, I knew that already. My commentary on the poor of the middle east being at risk is relative to the over all problem and how past and current U.S. foreign policy plays a role. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to track for you.

    We are talking about "the problem" of radical Islam and "solutions" to it, are we not? In an intelligent discussion of this problem is it not very relevant to talk about the underlying causes? Or are you not comfortable with that discussion? Tangent? I think not. Deep water for you? It sure looks that way. Would you prefer we just talk about the January 1 missile strike instead?


    Baiting, fun.....



    Nah man, I simply respond to posts in kind. You get what you give.
    Well do me the courtesy of at least trying to carry on an intelligent discussion with me then. Just because you say I haven't offered up "solutions" doesn't mean I haven't provided what I believe to be the best answer to your challenges.

    I have taken a great deal of time to put serious effort into reading and responding to your posts, point by point. I've glossed over nothing and addressed nearly every line of text you have posted in response to our argument. You haven't even tried to delve into a third of what I've discussed. It's fairly insulting to see you conduct yourself in this manner after I've taken your posts seriously enough to dedicate the kind of time I have in responding.

    If this is the effort you can muster, don't even bother responding.
    *insert profound statement here*

Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •