Gen. Michael Flynn: Radical Islamic Enemy Has Doubled in 10 Years

[musiclady]

Unless Muhammad walks the earth again and disavows the atrocities attributed to him in the Koran, exactly what is there for Islam to reform?  Their own prophet advocates the slaughter of infidels, and even partook in that violence as is written in the Koran.

If the teachings of Muhammad are to be believed, ISIS is merely following Islamic dogma.

In order to reform Islam, the teachings of Muhammad must be ignored.

Some Muslims do that, and practice a fairly peaceful religion.

Unfortunately, most of them tolerate, or encourage those who blow things up and chop people's heads off, with nary a murmur of complaint.

[aligncare]

King Abdullah and President al-Sisi are two who are speaking out and taking action against violent Sunni hegemony.

I'm sure we'd find other Muslims who also condemn the radicals.

[musiclady]

King Abdullah and President al-Sisi are two who are speaking out and taking action against violent Sunni hegemony.

I'm sure we'd find other Muslims who also condemn the radicals.

Actually, I think King Abdullah is a small glimmer of light in a very dark region of the world.

He is taking the fight to Isis, and killing a lot of bad guys.

I hope there will be others who follow suit with the two you mention.

Since Islamofacists kill far more Muslims than anyone else, I don't know why it's taken so long to get them engaged in the battle.

[Fishrrman]

aligncare wrote above:
[[ You got to have faith. You want to know what's changed? The Internet, YouTube, instant world-wide communication, in short, modernity. ]]

"Modern communications" seems to have -intensified- jihadism worldwide, not abated it.

Re "having faith":
It's "the faithful" of islam who are to be feared. The cohort of muslims who are faithful represent the greatest danger to The West, precisely because THEY ARE "faithful" -- to muhammed, and his goal of worldwide domination.

A quote to consider:
"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers."

-- Recep Tayyip Erdogan (president of Turkey)

[Dexter]

So tell me then.......... is it your learned view that the Washington meddling in Viet Nam didn't have any effect on the war effort there either?

We're not talking about Vietnam.

And, were you in Iraq (as you claim, at least) when Bush was President, or when Obama was pretending to be CinC?  There would be a difference in how the military was treated between the two situations.  (I know you think R's and D's are all alike, but you would, of course, be wrong about that as you are most of the time).

I was in Iraq when Obama became president.

Also............. you have given only two options.  Bomb "indiscriminately" or lose the war against evil and terrorism.

Which of those two do you prefer?

I think we should stop meddling in the Middle East and focus on improving the United States. Choosing not to fight an unwinnable war is not losing.

The fact that you don't try to learn anything speaks volumes about you....

I am constantly trying to learn and expand my understanding of all things.

[musiclady]

We're not talking about Vietnam.

But we ARE talking about the Democrats in Congress who are doing the same thing as they did in Viet Nam, and we are talking about Obama who has been decimating the military, and whose politics trump our security.  We are talking about an administration which will not even name the enemy, and yet claims to be fighting it.  (Who, as a matter of fact hates the Tea Party and Republicans more than it hates Islamic terrorists).  And THEY have interfered with what our military has been able to do in the War on Terror.

I was in Iraq when Obama became president.

At the beginning when Bush policies were still in effect, I assume, and not after Obama took away military control.....

I think we should stop meddling in the Middle East and focus on improving the United States. Choosing not to fight an unwinnable war is not losing.

Protecting our national security is not 'meddling' and improving the US will do no good if we're all dead.  And who declared that the war against terror is "unwinnable?"  We haven't actually fought it yet as we fought the Nazis and Imperial Japan.  While you were playing your games about "indiscriminate bombings" you never addressed the FACT that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'indiscriminate' and yet won the war against Japan.  Maybe some time you can stop evading the points I made and admit that there is a middle ground between your isolationist pacifism, which will get us all killed, and the other extreme, killing every Muslim.  If you actually have your own thoughts on alternate possibilities other than your own extremist views and another set of extremist views, it would be good if you'd actually voice them.

I am constantly trying to learn and expand my understanding of all things.

You hide it well.  And actually denied it upthread.

If it's true, it's good to know.  There's lots of wisdom here (and I'm NOT talking about myself) and you have a very lot to learn.

[Dexter]

But we ARE talking about the Democrats in Congress who are doing the same thing as they did in Viet Nam, and we are talking about Obama who has been decimating the military, and whose politics trump our security.  We are talking about an administration which will not even name the enemy, and yet claims to be fighting it.  (Who, as a matter of fact hates the Tea Party and Republicans more than it hates Islamic terrorists).  And THEY have interfered with what our military has been able to do in the War on Terror.

How has the military been decimated? The administration has difficulty naming the enemy because it was never about the enemy for them. It's about perpetual war and feeding the military-industrial complex.

At the beginning when Bush policies were still in effect, I assume, and not after Obama took away military control.....

Perhaps, but I was actually deployed twice, and the second time was to Afghanistan while Obama was already in office. If there was some massive hindrance in our effectiveness being caused by Washington I wasn't aware of it.

Protecting our national security is not 'meddling' and improving the US will do no good if we're all dead.  And who declared that the war against terror is "unwinnable?"  We haven't actually fought it yet as we fought the Nazis and Imperial Japan.  While you were playing your games about "indiscriminate bombings" you never addressed the FACT that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'indiscriminate' and yet won the war against Japan.  Maybe some time you can stop evading the points I made and admit that there is a middle ground between your isolationist pacifism, which will get us all killed, and the other extreme, killing every Muslim.  If you actually have your own thoughts on alternate possibilities other than your own extremist views and another set of extremist views, it would be good if you'd actually voice them.

We have gone far beyond the point of protecting ourselves, and it is my belief that creating more hatred towards the United States through our continued meddling is actually increasing the likelihood of us being targeted again. We lost 3000 lives and a few buildings on 9/11; I think we have repaid that debt tenfold. How many people need to die before we have adequately defended ourselves from an attack that happened 14 years ago? We've been over this before; extremists in the Middle East do not possess the means to kill all or even many of us. You're more likely to be struck by lighting multiple times than to be killed by a terrorist. You also don't seem to acknowledge the fact that it only takes a few nut jobs to pull off a successful terrorist attack. No amount of war is going to remove the possibility of us being attacked by terrorists. I would completely support dealing with them however we needed to if that changed and it was actually possible for us to prevent them from causing truly devastating damage. This might surprise you, but I advocated for the obliteration of Kim Jong Un and his entire power structure when he started threatening us with nuclear attacks.

The issues we face with extremist Islam are different than the issues we faced during World War 2. The Japanese and German governments were in control of the war effort against the United States. Dropping a nuke is not going to end the struggle with Islam because there is not a government that can make the call for extremism to end. We're not going to scare these people into submission. If we ramp up our war effort and start causing a lot more devastation they will only feel more justified in what they are doing. It will make the extremism worse because there will be even more people that are desperate and angry at the United States. Due to issues of perspective they cannot see the fact that we are the good guys. They can only see the barrels of our guns and the devastation of our bombs.

You hide it well.  And actually denied it upthread.

If it's true, it's good to know.  There's lots of wisdom here (and I'm NOT talking about myself) and you have a very lot to learn.

You only think I denied it because you misinterpreted what I said.

[musiclady]

How has the military been decimated? The administration has difficulty naming the enemy because it was never about the enemy for them. It's about perpetual war and feeding the military-industrial complex.

Here's a place for you to start your study of how Obama is destroying the military...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/dick-cheney-sees-enormous-long-term-damage-obamas-military-cuts

If you hate Dick Cheney (and I presume you do), then you can find multiple sources in multiple places (liberal, if you'd like) as to how Obama is cutting military pay, has fired multiple Generals, has removed officers from the field of battle, has strangled the troops in the field with debilitating ROE, etc., etc., etc.....

(There are plenty of people on this forum who have the stats if you need some help finding them).

Perhaps, but I was actually deployed twice, and the second time was to Afghanistan while Obama was already in office. If there was some massive hindrance in our effectiveness being caused by Washington I wasn't aware of it.

Your "awareness" or lack of awareness of the reality of what Obama was doing is irrelevant.  He has decimated the military, and seeks to do more.

We have gone far beyond the point of protecting ourselves, and it is my belief that creating more hatred towards the United States through our continued meddling is actually increasing the likelihood of us being targeted again. We lost 3000 lives and a few buildings on 9/11; I think we have repaid that debt tenfold. How many people need to die before we have adequately defended ourselves from an attack that happened 14 years ago? We've been over this before; extremists in the Middle East do not possess the means to kill all or even many of us. You're more likely to be struck by lighting multiple times than to be killed by a terrorist. You also don't seem to acknowledge the fact that it only takes a few nut jobs to pull off a successful terrorist attack. No amount of war is going to remove the possibility of us being attacked by terrorists. I would completely support dealing with them however we needed to if that changed and it was actually possible for us to prevent them from causing truly devastating damage. This might surprise you, but I advocated for the obliteration of Kim Jong Un and his entire power structure when he started threatening us with nuclear attacks.

The issues we face with extremist Islam are different than the issues we faced during World War 2. The Japanese and German governments were in control of the war effort against the United States. Dropping a nuke is not going to end the struggle with Islam because there is not a government that can make the call for extremism to end. We're not going to scare these people into submission. If we ramp up our war effort and start causing a lot more devastation they will only feel more justified in what they are doing. It will make the extremism worse because there will be even more people that are desperate and angry at the United States. Due to issues of perspective they cannot see the fact that we are the good guys. They can only see the barrels of our guns and the devastation of our bombs.

I've heard all the pacifist/isolationist arguments before, but IMO, they are dangerously naïve.  If it were just a few nutjobs killing people, your argument might be valid that we can't do a blasted thing about it.  But there are sponsors of terror (which Obama has tried to make his BFF's), there are organizations which Obama has embraced, and they can be destroyed, if we have the will to do it.

It's clear that you are obsessed with the idea of indiscriminate bombing, ignoring the fact that I have never promoted it, but the bombing we are doing to destroy ISIS is basically worthless.  When we bombed to get rid of Saddam Hussein, it worked.  The American military has the capability of destroying centers of terror (like Saddam's palaces) without destroying millions of people.

As for "scaring these people into submission,"....... who's suggesting that?  I'm in support of killing them, or taking them prisoner and never letting them out.  As long as they are at war with us (as they are), they are still prisoners of war.

Once again, I find your POV exceptionally naïve and unaware of the real dangers that Islamic terrorists pose.  I'm quite sure that it's because you support Obama's position that Islamic murderers and thugs are NOT our enemy.

And once again, I see in your words no solution to the threat we face.  Only denial that it exists.

The real world doesn't work that way, Dex.  We have an enemy, and they DO want us dead.

You only think I denied it because you misinterpreted what I said.

If that makes you feel better to blame it all  on me (you're good at that), more power to you.

[musiclady]

One point I should add to my above post, Dex.

I know you don't believe in it, but there IS such a thing as "peace through strength."

The terrorists are on the rise, Putin is misbehaving, and a whole host of other problems exist because Obama is a 'weak horse."

He is impotent, careless, feckless and in constant denial of the reality of the world.

He supports our enemies and coddles the bad guys while blaming the victims.

He's a BAD MAN, Dex, and supporting his foreign policy isn't a wise thing to do......

[Dexter]

Here's a place for you to start your study of how Obama is destroying the military...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/dick-cheney-sees-enormous-long-term-damage-obamas-military-cuts

If you hate Dick Cheney (and I presume you do), then you can find multiple sources in multiple places (liberal, if you'd like) as to how Obama is cutting military pay, has fired multiple Generals, has removed officers from the field of battle, has strangled the troops in the field with debilitating ROE, etc., etc., etc.....

(There are plenty of people on this forum who have the stats if you need some help finding them).

You don't think using the word "decimate" is a little bit of an exaggeration?

I've heard all the pacifist/isolationist arguments before, but IMO, they are dangerously naïve.  If it were just a few nutjobs killing people, your argument might be valid that we can't do a blasted thing about it.  But there are sponsors of terror (which Obama has tried to make his BFF's), there are organizations which Obama has embraced, and they can be destroyed, if we have the will to do it.

You have missed the point. I'm not saying there are only a few nutjobs that want to kill people. I am saying that when it only takes a few nutjobs to commit an act of terror there is no way to completely safeguard ourselves against it. Winning a war in the Middle East won't protect us against the possibility of being attacked by terrorists. We could kill every last person in the Middle East and then still be attacked by extremist Muslims from other parts of the world. To remove the threat entirely we would have to remove Islam entirely. If completely removing Islam is not an option then there is no way to deal with the threat.

It's clear that you are obsessed with the idea of indiscriminate bombing, ignoring the fact that I have never promoted it, but the bombing we are doing to destroy ISIS is basically worthless.  When we bombed to get rid of Saddam Hussein, it worked.  The American military has the capability of destroying centers of terror (like Saddam's palaces) without destroying millions of people.

We handily destroyed Saddam's forces because we knew where they were and we could concentrate on them. That is exactly what is not the case when it comes to extremism in Islam. Our military could easily destroy any standing military force on the planet. Nobody even comes close to the power of our military. However it is a different story when we're struggling to locate an enemy that relies on sneak attacks and blending in with innocent civilians.

As for "scaring these people into submission,"....... who's suggesting that?  I'm in support of killing them, or taking them prisoner and never letting them out.  As long as they are at war with us (as they are), they are still prisoners of war.

I thought you were suggesting that when you were going on about how Japan surrendered unconditionally in World War 2. That's why they surrendered; their government was terrified of the prospect of us dropping more nukes. However like I pointed out in the post above, there is not a government representing the extremist mindset that could just make the decision to surrender. It won't happen; these people have already shown they are more than willing to die for what they believe in, and the more we try to kill them the easier it is for them to recruit. I don't believe there is a middle ground scenario that allows us to "win" the war. We either need to cut our losses and pull out or commit genocide on a scale never seen before. 

Once again, I find your POV exceptionally naïve and unaware of the real dangers that Islamic terrorists pose.  I'm quite sure that it's because you support Obama's position that Islamic murderers and thugs are NOT our enemy.

Of course they are our enemy, but there is not a way we can target them and hunt them all down. Our methods create more and more hatred towards the U.S which creates more and more terrorists. It's like fighting a hydra; the more insistent you are on targeting the biting heads the more dangerous the beast becomes. The only way to destroy it is to crush it entirely. In this case that would mean the deaths of a lot of innocent people.

And once again, I see in your words no solution to the threat we face.  Only denial that it exists.

I recognize the threat, but I think you massively overestimate its ability to do harm to us.

[DCPatriot]

You don't need to sell me on the fact that Obama is a bad president. However I don't believe that means every single position he takes is automatically the polar opposite of the correct one. Nobody is wrong 100% of the time.

Using Obama's own words as evidence, what Republican Senator would vote to give him "...unlimited power to wage war anyplace on the globe"...in order to defeat ISIS.

Obama is solely responsible for the fall of Gaddafi, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  And Yemen too!  (Personally, I think ISIS is the Muslim Brotherhood)

King Abdullah and Assad, as well as the new king in Saudi Arabia are all nervous because they know exactly what Obama is trying to do. 

[musiclady]

You don't think using the word "decimate" is a little bit of an exaggeration?

No.  Not in the least.

You have missed the point. I'm not saying there are only a few nutjobs that want to kill people. I am saying that when it only takes a few nutjobs to commit an act of terror there is no way to completely safeguard ourselves against it. Winning a war in the Middle East won't protect us against the possibility of being attacked by terrorists. We could kill every last person in the Middle East and then still be attacked by extremist Muslims from other parts of the world. To remove the threat entirely we would have to remove Islam entirely. If completely removing Islam is not an option then there is no way to deal with the threat.

No, I didn't 'miss the point.'  There is a significant lack of logical progression in your comments here, and once again, you bring it back to killing everyone in the ME, which is non-germane to the conversation, since I've said repeatedly that's not an option.  Try to stay focused.  I'm glad, however, that you finally admitted that you have no solution and that you think there is no way to win the war against militant Islam.  I'm sure there were plenty of people just like you who felt the same way about the Nazis.  Oops.  We won.

We handily destroyed Saddam's forces because we knew where they were and we could concentrate on them. That is exactly what is not the case when it comes to extremism in Islam. Our military could easily destroy any standing military force on the planet. Nobody even comes close to the power of our military. However it is a different story when we're struggling to locate an enemy that relies on sneak attacks and blending in with innocent civilians.

 

There are concentrations of terrorists and mosques that could be targeting.  Unfortunately, Obama and the rest of you PC folks refuse to recognize who the enemy is, and refuse to understand that the religion IS the problem.  No wonder you think we can't win.  You can't even decide what's wrong.

I thought you were suggesting that when you were going on about how Japan surrendered unconditionally in World War 2. That's why they surrendered; their government was terrified of the prospect of us dropping more nukes. However like I pointed out in the post above, there is not a government representing the extremist mindset that could just make the decision to surrender. It won't happen; these people have already shown they are more than willing to die for what they believe in, and the more we try to kill them the easier it is for them to recruit. I don't believe there is a middle ground scenario that allows us to "win" the war. We either need to cut our losses and pull out or commit genocide on a scale never seen before. 

IOW, WE surrender.  When I was "going on about Japan" (oy), it was to counter your 'indiscriminate bombing' crapola you kept regurgitating.  OBVIOUSLY, we won a war without bombing everyone.  I was countering your silly straw dog argument.  I know you think we can't win a war if there's not a government involved, but if we'd let our intelligence and military take care of it, we could.  Once again, unfortunately, Obama has decimated and cuckolded both.

Of course they are our enemy, but there is not a way we can target them and hunt them all down. Our methods create more and more hatred towards the U.S which creates more and more terrorists. It's like fighting a hydra; the more insistent you are on targeting the biting heads the more dangerous the beast becomes. The only way to destroy it is to crush it entirely. In this case that would mean the deaths of a lot of innocent people.

Your defeatism is tiring.  And your parroting the leftist talking points is tedious.  You're blaming US for what THEY are doing, and that's absurd.  I've humored you a bit by not calling you what you are..... a liberal...... but you're making it very hard by spouting leftist ideology.

I recognize the threat, but I think you massively overestimate its ability to do harm to us.

In a series of absurd comments, this last one is the most absurd.  I know that you're too young to remember 9/11, but why don't you look at some footage of what this threat can, and will do if we don't take it seriously.

You, young man, are not taking it seriously.

btw, peace through strength is real.  The wuss in the WH is emboldening the enemy BIG TIME.

President Bush didn't.  Obama does.  Reagan didn't.  Bush I didn't.  Carter did.

Your surrender monkey side has caused the problem, Dex.  Doing the right thing and defeating a very real enemy has NOT.

[Dexter]

No, I didn't 'miss the point.'  There is a significant lack of logical progression in your comments here, and once again, you bring it back to killing everyone in the ME, which is non-germane to the conversation, since I've said repeatedly that's not an option.  Try to stay focused.  I'm glad, however, that you finally admitted that you have no solution and that you think there is no way to win the war against militant Islam.  I'm sure there were plenty of people just like you who felt the same way about the Nazis.  Oops.  We won.

If that's not an option then we have two options left. Fight endlessly like the military-industrial complex wants us to or cut our losses and leave so we can concentrate on problems in the United States. I'll reiterate once again that Nazi Germany and extremist Islam are two very different problems, and what works on one doesn't necessarily work on the other. I've explained more than a few times why we can't defeat them the same way we defeated Germany, and when I asked you how we could thoroughly defeat them without genocide you offered absolutely nothing.

IOW, WE surrender.  When I was "going on about Japan" (oy), it was to counter your 'indiscriminate bombing' crapola you kept regurgitating.  OBVIOUSLY, we won a war without bombing everyone.  I was countering your silly straw dog argument.  I know you think we can't win a war if there's not a government involved, but if we'd let our intelligence and military take care of it, we could.  Once again, unfortunately, Obama has decimated and cuckolded both.

Our war with the Japanese government was not the same as our war with an extremist mindset. The Japanese government had the authority to decide to surrender. There is nobody that can surrender for the extremists. There won't be a surrender no matter how many of them we kill.

Your defeatism is tiring.  And your parroting the leftist talking points is tedious.  You're blaming US for what THEY are doing, and that's absurd.  I've humored you a bit by not calling you what you are..... a liberal...... but you're making it very hard by spouting leftist ideology.

Your lack of cogent arguments is tiring. You can call me whatever you want; it doesn't hurt my feelings. It does make your argument look weak, though.

In a series of absurd comments, this last one is the most absurd.  I know that you're too young to remember 9/11, but why don't you look at some footage of what this threat can, and will do if we don't take it seriously.

9/11 was a tragedy, but it was also far from a mortal wound. They killed 0.00001% of our population. They do not possess the means to truly put our existence at risk. No amount of war waged in the Middle East will decrease the likelihood of a small group of people committing an act of terror against the United States. How many more years do we need to waste in the Middle East before you finally accept reality?

[musiclady]

If that's not an option then we have two options left. Fight endlessly like the military-industrial complex wants us to or cut our losses and leave so we can concentrate on problems in the United States. I'll reiterate once again that Nazi Germany and extremist Islam are two very different problems, and what works on one doesn't necessarily work on the other. I've explained more than a few times why we can't defeat them the same way we defeated Germany, and when I asked you how we could thoroughly defeat them without genocide you offered absolutely nothing.

I'm going to call you on that lie, BIG time.  Though I claim no personal expertise, I offered FAR from "nothing."  I said to allow our intelligence and our military to make the calls in order to DEFEAT the enemy.  And I said that Obama (with your approval apparently) had decimated and cuckolded both.

Our war with the Japanese government was not the same as our war with an extremist mindset. The Japanese government had the authority to decide to surrender. There is nobody that can surrender for the extremists. There won't be a surrender no matter how many of them we kill.

The wars don't have to be 'the same' for us to be able to win them both.  That's an absurd argument.  Every war in history has been different from the others, and yet, they are won by one side or the other.  You accuse me of overestimating the enemy.  In reality, it is YOU who overestimate them.  You consider them to be undefeatable.  I do not.  You want to throw up your hands and give up.  I do not.   

Your lack of cogent arguments is tiring. You can call me whatever you want; it doesn't hurt my feelings. It does make your argument look weak, though.

At the risk of imitating your tactics, I will say that it is you who lack cogent arguments and refuse to address those I have given.  I don't intent to 'hurt your feelings.'  Being the lone liberal on a conservative board indicates that you have a great deal of hubris, and I'm sure you're not all that easily hurt.  The only reason you think my arguments are weak is because you are incapable of understanding a POV other than your own, and dealing with the facts before you.  Typical of a utopian who doesn't have to deal in real life situations. 

9/11 was a tragedy, but it was also far from a mortal wound. They killed 0.00001% of our population. They do not possess the means to truly put our existence at risk. No amount of war waged in the Middle East will decrease the likelihood of a small group of people committing an act of terror against the United States. How many more years do we need to waste in the Middle East before you finally accept reality?

I guess for one who doesn't value freedom, terrorists don't pose much of a threat.  But when they are on our streets, in our businesses, beheading innocent women, keeping people from shopping malls because of abject fear, they need to be taken seriously.  It doesn't matter that you cavalierly disregard the lives of 3,000 people who were brutally murdered on 9/11.  It doesn't matter that you, vomiting leftist talking points, blame US for terrorism and not the terrorists themselves.

We've heard these arguments ad nauseum from other leftists, and have rejected them because they have no merit.

You can spout off about the military industrial complex all you want.  You can blame our self-defense for the beheading of innocent women and children and the bombing of marketplaces and shooting of innocent shoppers at Delis all you want, but you will be WRONG.

Thank GOD that one day weak and impotent Barack Hussein Obama will be out of office and that your shared philosophy of weakness and submission will be out the window.  Hopefully, for as long as the Lord gives me on this earth.

I want America and our freedoms to survive, and because of Obama and his impotence and appeasement, we still may not make it.

[musiclady]

btw, I'm done with this conversation.

When I start getting angry with an internet liberal who dismisses 9/11 as a 'tragedy' of infinitesimal proportion and blames terrorism on our actions, it's no longer worth the argument.

All I can say, good people, is that I tried to reason with the boy, and it's not really worth the aggravation...

To Dex...... 

[Dexter]

I'm going to call you on that lie, BIG time.  Though I claim no personal expertise, I offered FAR from "nothing."  I said to allow our intelligence and our military to make the calls in order to DEFEAT the enemy.  And I said that Obama (with your approval apparently) had decimated and cuckolded both.

You didn't offer anything of substance when it actually came to how we were going to better wage the war on terror without widespread destruction. What calls was our military not allowed to make that would not amount to indiscriminate destruction? Of course you don't possess the knowledge necessary to detail how we could have done that. Our generals and the entirety of the military lack that knowledge as well. If they didn't lack that knowledge we would have carried out military operations differently. The truth is there are no controlled methods for exterminating terrorists more efficiently that the military wasn't allowed to use. Placing blame and offering a vague solution that doesn't actually detail what the solution would be does not answer the question I asked.

The wars don't have to be 'the same' for us to be able to win them both.  That's an absurd argument.  Every war in history has been different from the others, and yet, they are won by one side or the other.  You accuse me of overestimating the enemy.  In reality, it is YOU who overestimate them.  You consider them to be undefeatable.  I do not.  You want to throw up your hands and give up.  I do not.   

If all extremist Muslims all over the planet grouped together to make one standing military we would annihilate them in 5 minutes. The problems we face right now are more complex and nuanced than the problems we faced in World War 2. It's not as simple as just going and killing the enemy.

I guess for one who doesn't value freedom, terrorists don't pose much of a threat.  But when they are on our streets, in our businesses, beheading innocent women, keeping people from shopping malls because of abject fear, they need to be taken seriously.  It doesn't matter that you cavalierly disregard the lives of 3,000 people who were brutally murdered on 9/11.  It doesn't matter that you, vomiting leftist talking points, blame US for terrorism and not the terrorists themselves.

Accepting the reality that death and violence breed hatred and more extremism does not equate to blaming the United States for terrorism. It's a complicated problem and there is not a simple solution.

[Dexter]

All I can say, good people, is that I tried to reason with the boy, and it's not really worth the aggravation...

If you learn to control your emotions you can actually have debates without getting angry. There is no reason to get angry over somebody seeing the world differently than you do.

[musiclady]

If you learn to control your emotions you can actually have debates without getting angry. There is no reason to get angry over somebody seeing the world differently than you do.

I'm not angry.  I was getting angry, so stopped short.  (Reading comprehension issues?  )

But since you brought it up, there IS a reason to get angry that anyone.......ANYONE..........diminishes what happened on 9/11 as irrelevant and already atoned for.  Obama does that because he hates this country and doesn't care that 3,000 innocent people died at the hands of a few thugs with boxcutters.

I know you can't remember it, but you should listen to people who do, and who care.

Now, enough of your nonsense.   My time is too valuable to waste any more tonight.

Concerted boots on the ground with massive air support.  ISIS is destroyed, and terrorism is no longer as attractive to the world's thugs.  Let the military, guided by intelligence get the job done.

Peace through strength.

VICTORY over EVIL.

Real concepts.  Real world.  Real, Dex.  Not utopian academic nonsense.

Bye.

[Bigun]

I'm not angry.  I was getting angry, so stopped short.  (Reading comprehension issues?  )

But since you brought it up, there IS a reason to get angry that anyone.......ANYONE..........diminishes what happened on 9/11 as irrelevant and already atoned for.  Obama does that because he hates this country and doesn't care that 3,000 innocent people died at the hands of a few thugs with boxcutters.

I know you can't remember it, but you should listen to people who do, and who care.

Now, enough of your nonsense.   My time is too valuable to waste any more tonight.

Concerted boots on the ground with massive air support.  ISIS is destroyed, and terrorism is no longer as attractive to the world's thugs.  Let the military, guided by intelligence get the job done.

Peace through strength.

VICTORY over EVIL.

Real concepts.  Real world.  Real, Dex.  Not utopian academic nonsense.

Bye.

Remove the Mullahs from control in Iran and ISIS will sink under it's own weight! Doing anything other than that is merely dealing with symptoms rather than the cause!

[musiclady]

Remove the Mullahs from control in Iran and ISIS will sink under it's own weight! Doing anything other than that is merely dealing with symptoms rather than the cause!

I agree that Iran is THE major player in this war.  And I think you may be right in what you suggest will kill the disease at its core.

[Dexter]

I'm not angry.  I was getting angry, so stopped short.  (Reading comprehension issues?  )

Sorry, I didn't realize you weren't actually angry and instead were only in the process of getting angry.

But since you brought it up, there IS a reason to get angry that anyone.......ANYONE..........diminishes what happened on 9/11 as irrelevant and already atoned for.  Obama does that because he hates this country and doesn't care that 3,000 innocent people died at the hands of a few thugs with boxcutters.

9/11 is the reason I joined the military the moment I turned 18. Demonstrating why 9/11 doesn't make terrorists an existential threat does not diminish what happened that day. Losing 3,000 innocent lives is a horrible tragedy. I've enjoyed our conversation. I hope in the future you will decide to continue your efforts to show me the magnitude of my naivete.

[musiclady]

Sorry, I didn't realize you weren't actually angry and instead were only in the process of getting angry.

9/11 is the reason I joined the military the moment I turned 18. Demonstrating why 9/11 doesn't make terrorists an existential threat does not diminish what happened that day. Losing 3,000 innocent lives is a horrible tragedy. I've enjoyed our conversation. I hope in the future you will decide to continue your efforts to show me the magnitude of my naivete.

Unfortunately, you make that very easy.......

Some day in the future when I decide I have time to waste, I'll engage you in debate again.  Sometimes it's good for the brain to argue against your form of ambiguity and confusion.  It's actually centering to reinforce the fact that I actually stand for something in a world of equivocation and incertitude.

Peace.