• 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!

US hostage Kassig 'killed by IS'

Black Dog said:
An entire rant that did not address anything I said or back up what you said....



That is what I was addressing. You have yet to prove that...

loping off heads is the "true" nature of religion or that religion is somehow holding society back.
Click to expand...

So you have never had a history course covering monotheism?
 
OrphanSlug said:
So you have never had a history course covering monotheism?
Click to expand...

I was an anthropology major in colledge. I have probably forgotten more than you actually know. That however is not what we are discussing.
 
Black Dog said:
I was an anthropology major in colledge. I have probably forgotten more than you actually know. That however is not what we are discussing.
Click to expand...

So you are going to pretend the core Monotheism religions were always about peace. That is a laugh.

Your anthropology major should have come with the knowledge conclusively of our propensity for going to war over ideology, especially those based on systems of belief. Religions. It should have taught you overwhelmingly our human nature of being intentionally divisive along these lines and resorting to eventual violence to settle who is right.

You can challenge all you would like that we have the philosophical, sociological, and even evolutionary means to avoid these things. But we have something holding us back at every step. Ideological religious differences. The entire history of humanity is plagued with this and all it took to make matters much worse was the establishment of community (in anthropological terms) rooted in systems of belief. You cannot claim anthropology taught you otherwise no matter what your personal system of belief is.

Either you forgot too much from anthropology, or replaced it with a sunshine and roses view of humanity under religions.
 
On a positive note, "Jihadi Johnny" has allegedly been wounded and captured.
 
OrphanSlug said:
But we have something holding us back at every step. Ideological religious differences. The entire history of humanity is plagued with this and all it took to make matters much worse was the establishment of community (in anthropological terms) rooted in systems of belief. You cannot claim anthropology taught you otherwise no matter what your personal system of belief is.

Either you forgot too much from anthropology, or replaced it with a sunshine and roses view of humanity under religions.
Click to expand...

It isn't the religion. It's the human mind and the human condition, and the fact that since we think, and we reason, we want answers to those things that we don't understand. Humans have been killing each other since the dawning of mankind, before there was any formalized religion. Even as recent as the Americas in pre-colonial times, tribes were killing each other- not over religious differences, but over the fact that they didn't consider each other to even be human. It's a human problem, not a religion problem. The religion is the result of the much larger problem, not the cause.
 
Black Dog said:
I was an anthropology major in colledge.
I have probably forgotten more than you actually know.
Click to expand...
 That however is not what we are discussing.
Click to expand...



If you've forgotten it, then you can't talk about it, eh?

Judging from your post it looks like one of the things that you've forgotten is how to spell.:roll:
 
US Conservative said:
RIP.
Life is cheap under ISIS, and Obama has allowed ISIS to flourish.
Click to expand...
 These attacks will continue until our weak President decides to get serious.
Click to expand...



ISIS didn't exist before G.W. Bush invaded Iraq, which was no threat to the USA. :roll:

The only country that gained anything from that war is Iran, which was glad to see its fellow Shia Muslims take power there.
 
Last edited:
OrphanSlug said:
So you are going to pretend the core Monotheism religions were always about peace. That is a laugh.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. You should go read what I actually said and obviously what you said.

OrphanSlug said:
Your anthropology major should have come with the knowledge conclusively of our propensity for going to war over ideology, especially those based on systems of belief. Religions. It should have taught you overwhelmingly our human nature of being intentionally divisive along these lines and resorting to eventual violence to settle who is right.
Click to expand...

And again you completely missed any point I made. You are equating religion as always being involved or it's teachings being subversive. All of that is false. A false premise leads to a flawed conclusion as in your case.

OrphanSlug said:
You can challenge all you would like that we have the philosophical, sociological, and even evolutionary means to avoid these things. But we have something holding us back at every step. Ideological religious differences. The entire history of humanity is plagued with this and all it took to make matters much worse was the establishment of community (in anthropological terms) rooted in systems of belief. You cannot claim anthropology taught you otherwise no matter what your personal system of belief is.

Either you forgot too much from anthropology, or replaced it with a sunshine and roses view of humanity under religions.
Click to expand...

Well please... So far you have posted no evidence to support your claims. Your claims are narrow minded, overly simplified and false.
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
If you've forgotten it, then you can't talk about it, eh?

Judging from your post it looks like one of the things that you've forgotten is how to spell.:roll:
Click to expand...

And this has anything to do with anything? Personal attacks are nothing but the refuge of those with no real argument.

PS it was just a typo. Great argument. [/sarcasm]
 
VanceMack said:
Much as I love pointing out the many flaws and weaknesses of Obama, I dont know what more Obama can do right now. He underestimated the threat of ISIS...sure. He mishandled the Iraqi troop pullout, screwed up the negotiation process which involved leaving a significant deterrent force in place, (ignoring even his own political advisers) true. But...after ISIS began rolling he engaged and is still engaging using really the only tools at his disposal. If he goes in full bore, guns blazing, people on the right will be critical of engaging. If he does nothing, people on the right will be critical of doing nothing. His Obots will defend him no matter what but many on the left will just accuse him of going to war to appease the eeeeevil right wing neocons. And as of this writing, the world doesnt appear to be lining up to help out. Realistically, the drone attacks and air strikes are his best option.
Click to expand...

The problem is that half-hearted measures like that won't be effective. And sending forces in piecemeal, as he's done, is very likely to get some of them killed while achieving nothing very important. This is an unmitigated disaster, and it is Mr. Obama's complete dereliction that's brought it about. Letting these jihadists stay where they are--and far more force than he's willing to use would be needed to drive them out--is inviting another attack even worse than 9/11. They have even more resources than Al Qaeda had during the years leading up to that, and as good a safe haven as they had in Afghanistan.

Syria had large stocks of chemical weapons, and it is naive to think Assad, with his back to the wall, would have disclosed and removed any more than needed to give the appearance he was cooperating. The thought of a dozen suicides with flasks of sarin and VX spraying it around crowded public places all over the U.S. is a little unsettling. Disneyland, maybe?

It's also possible that these jihadists could get anthrax weapons. We know Hussein's regime had learned the techniques for processing the germs into a form that would be militarily useful. About 6,000 liters of liquid anthrax culture were found and destroyed by international inspectors, along with processing machinery. Some of the people with that knowledge must be around, and there's no shortage of money to buy their help. And the raw materials needed did not disappear forever, just because a batch or two of them was destroyed years ago.

When the U.S. had a biological weapons program, it had a study done of the probable effects of releasing one hundred kilos of weaponized anthrax powder from a cropduster flying upwind of a large city in weather conditions favorable for an attack. The dust was assumed to be released at a certain speed and altitude, during a certain number of seconds, while flying across the wind.

The dust would settle everywhere, and many thousands of people would inhale small amounts of it--it does not take much. And this would happen for many hours or probably days, until the first cases appeared at hospitals and made people aware the anthrax was there. The study's conclusion was stunning--a well-designed attack like this could kill roughly as many people as a nuclear weapon exploded over the same city.

Most of us hear light planes flying at night all the time, without having any idea where they are going, or who or what is on board. I've flown in a plane like that myself, at night over L.A. Nothing would prevent a plane from pulling out of a cropduster hangar a few dozen miles outside a city one night, and taking off with an unusual load. The whole thing would be done a few minutes later, and judging by the response on 9/11, it's very unlikely anyone would even know anything had happened, let alone react in time to stop it.

Not to worry, though--the ship of state is safe and sound, with President Pinprick at the helm.
 
joG said:
One problem we have is that we cannot stop the terrorists. These movements go on and on. When I was a kid they were already targeting Americans. So we can wipe up the mess in Syria and Iraq for maybe $ 1/2 trillion.
But we are not willing to do the nastiness necessary to quiet the bad guys for good
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...



The only people who can clean up that neighborhood are the people who live in it. If they don't want to do it, we're wasting our time and money trying to help them. :roll:
 
Amadeus said:
What should he do? Lay out your strategy.
Click to expand...

Bomb the living **** out of every ISIS target we can find, then deploy 5 divisions to mop up what's left.
 
Black Dog said:
And this has anything to do with anything? Personal attacks are nothing but the refuge of those with no real argument.

PS it was just a typo.
Click to expand...
Great argument. [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...



Try reading what you type before you post it.

That works pretty good most of the time. :roll:
 
apdst said:
Bomb the living **** out of every ISIS target we can find, then deploy 5 divisions to mop up what's left.
Click to expand...

Not realistic. We can't just go a' bombing. That is not the answer to everything. :doh
 
apdst said:
Bomb the living **** out of every ISIS target we can find,
then deploy 5 divisions to mop up what's left.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Who's going to do the clean-up after the clean-up? :roll:

If we bomb them back into the stone age those who survive will be killing each other with clubs and stones.
 
Last edited:
Black Dog said:
Not realistic. We can't just go a' bombing. That is not the answer to everything. :doh
Click to expand...

Yes we can. Who's going to stop us? Nobody cares if ISIS gets wiped out.
 
shrubnose said:
Who's going to do the clean-up after the clean-up? :roll:
Click to expand...

American troops, just like we did after Operation Iraqi Freedom. You have noticed that the problems all started after we pulled out, right?
 
apdst said:
Yes we can. Who's going to stop us? Nobody cares if ISIS gets wiped out.
Click to expand...

You are talking about going into sovereign nations to bomb their people as well. Destroying infrastructure etc as well. That is completely unreasonable. Not to mention the ramifications from the rest of the world.
 
Black Dog said:
You are talking about going into sovereign nations to bomb their people as well. Destroying infrastructure etc as well. That is completely unreasonable. Not to mention the ramifications from the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Not so much, since ISIS doesn't occupy many built up areas. However, the longer we wait to blow'em away, the more built up areas they will occupy. The time to strike was when they were moving their main body across the Iraqi desert, out in the open, away from non-combatants. The chances of collateral damage, at that point, would have been reduced to almost zero.
 
matchlight said:
The problem is that half-hearted measures like that won't be effective. And sending forces in piecemeal, as he's done, is very likely to get some of them killed while achieving nothing very important. This is an unmitigated disaster, and it is Mr. Obama's complete dereliction that's brought it about. Letting these jihadists stay where they are--and far more force than he's willing to use would be needed to drive them out--is inviting another attack even worse than 9/11. They have even more resources than Al Qaeda had during the years leading up to that, and as good a safe haven as they had in Afghanistan.

Syria had large stocks of chemical weapons, and it is naive to think Assad, with his back to the wall, would have disclosed and removed any more than needed to give the appearance he was cooperating. The thought of a dozen suicides with flasks of sarin and VX spraying it around crowded public places all over the U.S. is a little unsettling. Disneyland, maybe?

It's also possible that these jihadists could get anthrax weapons. We know Hussein's regime had learned the techniques for processing the germs into a form that would be militarily useful. About 6,000 liters of liquid anthrax culture were found and destroyed by international inspectors, along with processing machinery. Some of the people with that knowledge must be around, and there's no shortage of money to buy their help. And the raw materials needed did not disappear forever, just because a batch or two of them was destroyed years ago.

When the U.S. had a biological weapons program, it had a study done of the probable effects of releasing one hundred kilos of weaponized anthrax powder from a cropduster flying upwind of a large city in weather conditions favorable for an attack. The dust was assumed to be released at a certain speed and altitude, during a certain number of seconds, while flying across the wind.

The dust would settle everywhere, and many thousands of people would inhale small amounts of it--it does not take much. And this would happen for many hours or probably days, until the first cases appeared at hospitals and made people aware the anthrax was there. The study's conclusion was stunning--a well-designed attack like this could kill roughly as many people as a nuclear weapon exploded over the same city.

Most of us hear light planes flying at night all the time, without having any idea where they are going, or who or what is on board. I've flown in a plane like that myself, at night over L.A. Nothing would prevent a plane from pulling out of a cropduster hangar a few dozen miles outside a city one night, and taking off with an unusual load. The whole thing would be done a few minutes later, and judging by the response on 9/11, it's very unlikely anyone would even know anything had happened, let alone react in time to stop it.

Not to worry, though--the ship of state is safe and sound, with President Pinprick at the helm.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you have to seek small victories. Where is the rest of the world? And who in this country would set aside politics to support an Obama led war effort?

"Jihadi John, the Briton who beheaded two British and two American hostages held by Islamic State terrorists, has been injured in a US-led air strike, according to reports received by the Foreign Office.
The masked ‘executioner’ with a London accent is believed to have narrowly escaped death when he attended a summit of the group’s leaders in an Iraqi town close to the Syrian border last Saturday.
The meeting was targeted by American and Iraqi jets."


Read more: Got him! Jihadi John is 'wounded in US airstrike on secret bunker meeting of ISIS high command'  | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
apdst said:
American troops, just like we did after Operation Iraqi Freedom. You have noticed that the problems all started after we pulled out, right?
Click to expand...

No, the "problems" existed before, during and after our troops entered/left the picture. Just as the war on drugs is endless so too is the war on terror. Attempts at controlling the supply are not likely to work so long as demand persists. Much of the escalation of violence is caused by those outside the region putting arms into the region, mainly for personal profit. Note how many US supplied arms are now in the hands of ISIS fighters. We give them to "friends" in the region who, in turn, either sell them to the "enemy" or abandon them when someone spooks them (or their family). There are very, very few loyal Iraqis and there are many, many in Iraq that have strong "tribal" ties. Trying to pretend that Iraq is ready for any form of unified "coalition" leadership is the root cause of our failure to try to force that to happen.
 
VanceMack said:
Sometimes you have to seek small victories. Where is the rest of the world? And who in this country would set aside politics to support an Obama led war effort?

"Jihadi John, the Briton who beheaded two British and two American hostages held by Islamic State terrorists, has been injured in a US-led air strike, according to reports received by the Foreign Office.
The masked ‘executioner’ with a London accent is believed to have narrowly escaped death when he attended a summit of the group’s leaders in an Iraqi town close to the Syrian border last Saturday.
The meeting was targeted by American and Iraqi jets."


Read more: Got him! Jihadi John is 'wounded in US airstrike on secret bunker meeting of ISIS high command'* | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Click to expand...



I read about that. My first thought was that they cut it too fine in choosing the size of the bomb, out of the same exaggerated concern for civilian casualties that's hampered the U.S. military all along in fighting these people. There is no way a very large bomb leaves anyone at a meeting just wounded. This was not an enormous U-boat pen at Peenemunde they were attacking, with a reinforced concrete roof sixteen feet thick. The fact such important figures were allowed to survive, once they'd been pinpointed, is a serious blunder. Thanks to President Pinprick for keeping everyone on such a short leash they can't do the job right.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
No, the "problems" existed before, during and after our troops entered/left the picture. Just as the war on drugs is endless so too is the war on terror. Attempts at controlling the supply are not likely to work so long as demand persists. Much of the escalation of violence is caused by those outside the region putting arms into the region, mainly for personal profit. Note how many US supplied arms are now in the hands of ISIS fighters. We give them to "friends" in the region who, in turn, either sell them to the "enemy" or abandon them when someone spooks them (or their family). There are very, very few loyal Iraqis and there are many, many in Iraq that have strong "tribal" ties. Trying to pretend that Iraq is ready for any form of unified "coalition" leadership is the root cause of our failure to try to force that to happen.
Click to expand...

If you kill enough of them, the demand will shrink. There was once a huge demand for Nazis. After we got done with them, not so much.

Half-assed action, or no action at all won't work. I believe we've all seen that, by now.
 
Black Dog said:
You are talking about going into sovereign nations to bomb their people as well. Destroying infrastructure etc as well. That is completely unreasonable. Not to mention the ramifications from the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

****, recent history is a clear indication of "ramifications."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom