Consequences for US decisions on letting people into the USA

[frigidweirdo]

The Muslim population of Europe is estimated to be 46 out of total population of 743 million. That's 6.1%.

The primary cause of the increase in Muslim migrants to Europe is the Syrian crisis. Almost 50% of the migrants come from Syria, mostly as refugees. As the war whines down and refugees return home migration rates will return to normal. Refugees unlike immigrants leave their home because the conditions become intolerable or they are forced to leave. Once those conditions significantly improve, 70% return home.

Maybe, but I doubt it. More likely it is a deliberate invasion.

Yes, they deliberately got themselves invaded, then deliberately caused chaos by making a power vacuum, then deliberately did all those other things like the Arab Spring that led to the Syrian conflict. Er... what?

Actually, if anyone did anything deliberate it was Bush W. The man seemed to want to create a new enemy that everyone could get behind, that would cause fear, that would unite the old allies, that would replace the USSR.

And they got it. He has caused so many problems for the normal person, it's ridiculous, and all so the right can feel good about themselves and find it easier to get elected. Oh, fucking wonderful.

You obviously have problems understanding cause and effect. Terrorists deliberately create terror; it's what they do. They also create anger that results in enemies. That's also what they do. Don't want new enemies? Don't earn them.

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

You're going to equate killing the enemy during combat with the deliberate rape murder torture of innocents for fun and profit? Seriously? If so you are one sick puppy.

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

Absolutely. I can't believe sane person would think there is any question.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

No truth to any part of that statement.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

The truth is that terrorism is NOT warfare. This is a fact recognized and agreed upon by all civilized nations long since. Feel free to reference the Geneva, Haig, and other conventions.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US?

I don't care why a bunch of blood-thirsty barbarians hate the US and I am pleased to have them as enemies.

Wow, you're the one equating killing the enemy during combat and "rape murder torture" and not me. Don't try these tactics on me by throwing out nonsense.

Firstly, it was combat that the US started, and started with lies. Just because you have a positive image of combat done "the proper way" doesn't mean that invading a foreign country based on lies, for other reasons that have to do with money, greed and the green eyed monster, doesn't mean that it is actually a positive thing.

You can't think why a sane person would think that ISIS and the US are much different. Yes, ISIS is doing some pretty bad stuff. It gets all over the news every time they find something, whereas other stuff in other countries doesn't get reported. The media being biased and all that stuff, and you buy it hook line and sinkers.

The US committed torture in Iraq, we have seen the pictures. That's not better than ISIS. The US created the environment for ISIS to flourish, is that a positive thing? No, it is not.

"Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

No truth to any part of that statement."

So, Bush didn't invade Iraq?
Bush didn't tell people there were WMDs in Iraq?

How is this not the truth?

He didn't set up an environment that produced ISIS?
He didn't cause Islamic terrorism to exist in Iraq when there was clearly no Islamic terrorism, no al Qaeda etc in Iraq?

Come off it.

How is terrorism not warfare?

Again, I told you that the US decides to ridicule terrorism as not a legitimate way of fighting because the US has massive military superiority against these groups, so it wants to try and gain an advantage, and also keep the people happy by telling them what to think.

So, the US goes into Muslim countries and the Muslim countries can't fight with conventional methods, so they're just expected to lie down and take it up the ass from the US because the US has decided that you can only fight the "honorable way", like the US did by killing the Native Americans, like it did invading countries etc etc. Oh, come on, you can't seriously believe this propaganda, can you? Wait, sure you can, millions do all the time.

And then we get down to the issue.

You don't give a shit how this happened. You don't care how the problem started. You're perfectly happy to carry on in the manner you are without having the address the issues. We call this ignorance and your post and your views are based on an ignorance that you're probably unwilling to accept, and I have no doubt you'll continue to tell me stuff out of context, picking and choosing facts, and presenting an argument that is not real. And all so the US can carry on doing what it is doing making the world a less safe place every year, and you'll blame someone else every time.

 

[danielpalos]

The Muslim population of Europe is estimated to be 46 out of total population of 743 million. That's 6.1%.

The primary cause of the increase in Muslim migrants to Europe is the Syrian crisis. Almost 50% of the migrants come from Syria, mostly as refugees. As the war whines down and refugees return home migration rates will return to normal. Refugees unlike immigrants leave their home because the conditions become intolerable or they are forced to leave. Once those conditions significantly improve, 70% return home.

Maybe, but I doubt it. More likely it is a deliberate invasion.

Yes, they deliberately got themselves invaded, then deliberately caused chaos by making a power vacuum, then deliberately did all those other things like the Arab Spring that led to the Syrian conflict. Er... what?

Actually, if anyone did anything deliberate it was Bush W. The man seemed to want to create a new enemy that everyone could get behind, that would cause fear, that would unite the old allies, that would replace the USSR.

And they got it. He has caused so many problems for the normal person, it's ridiculous, and all so the right can feel good about themselves and find it easier to get elected. Oh, fucking wonderful.

You obviously have problems understanding cause and effect. Terrorists deliberately create terror; it's what they do. They also create anger that results in enemies. That's also what they do. Don't want new enemies? Don't earn them.

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

You're going to equate killing the enemy during combat with the deliberate rape murder torture of innocents for fun and profit? Seriously? If so you are one sick puppy.

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

Absolutely. I can't believe sane person would think there is any question.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

No truth to any part of that statement.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

The truth is that terrorism is NOT warfare. This is a fact recognized and agreed upon by all civilized nations long since. Feel free to reference the Geneva, Haig, and other conventions.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US?

I don't care why a bunch of blood-thirsty barbarians hate the US and I am pleased to have them as enemies.

It cannot be real times of war without real times of war tax rates.

If we can "afford to lower taxes", then it is just politics as usual, so the rich can get richer faster.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Maybe, but I doubt it. More likely it is a deliberate invasion.

Yes, they deliberately got themselves invaded, then deliberately caused chaos by making a power vacuum, then deliberately did all those other things like the Arab Spring that led to the Syrian conflict. Er... what?

Actually, if anyone did anything deliberate it was Bush W. The man seemed to want to create a new enemy that everyone could get behind, that would cause fear, that would unite the old allies, that would replace the USSR.

And they got it. He has caused so many problems for the normal person, it's ridiculous, and all so the right can feel good about themselves and find it easier to get elected. Oh, fucking wonderful.

You obviously have problems understanding cause and effect. Terrorists deliberately create terror; it's what they do. They also create anger that results in enemies. That's also what they do. Don't want new enemies? Don't earn them.

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

You're going to equate killing the enemy during combat with the deliberate rape murder torture of innocents for fun and profit? Seriously? If so you are one sick puppy.

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

Absolutely. I can't believe sane person would think there is any question.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

No truth to any part of that statement.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

The truth is that terrorism is NOT warfare. This is a fact recognized and agreed upon by all civilized nations long since. Feel free to reference the Geneva, Haig, and other conventions.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US?

I don't care why a bunch of blood-thirsty barbarians hate the US and I am pleased to have them as enemies.

Wow, you're the one equating killing the enemy during combat and "rape murder torture" and not me. Don't try these tactics on me by throwing out nonsense.

Firstly, it was combat that the US started, and started with lies. Just because you have a positive image of combat done "the proper way" doesn't mean that invading a foreign country based on lies, for other reasons that have to do with money, greed and the green eyed monster, doesn't mean that it is actually a positive thing.

You can't think why a sane person would think that ISIS and the US are much different. Yes, ISIS is doing some pretty bad stuff. It gets all over the news every time they find something, whereas other stuff in other countries doesn't get reported. The media being biased and all that stuff, and you buy it hook line and sinkers.

The US committed torture in Iraq, we have seen the pictures. That's not better than ISIS. The US created the environment for ISIS to flourish, is that a positive thing? No, it is not.

"Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

No truth to any part of that statement."

So, Bush didn't invade Iraq?
Bush didn't tell people there were WMDs in Iraq?

How is this not the truth?

He didn't set up an environment that produced ISIS?
He didn't cause Islamic terrorism to exist in Iraq when there was clearly no Islamic terrorism, no al Qaeda etc in Iraq?

Come off it.

How is terrorism not warfare?

Again, I told you that the US decides to ridicule terrorism as not a legitimate way of fighting because the US has massive military superiority against these groups, so it wants to try and gain an advantage, and also keep the people happy by telling them what to think.

So, the US goes into Muslim countries and the Muslim countries can't fight with conventional methods, so they're just expected to lie down and take it up the ass from the US because the US has decided that you can only fight the "honorable way", like the US did by killing the Native Americans, like it did invading countries etc etc. Oh, come on, you can't seriously believe this propaganda, can you? Wait, sure you can, millions do all the time.

And then we get down to the issue.

You don't give a shit how this happened. You don't care how the problem started. You're perfectly happy to carry on in the manner you are without having the address the issues. We call this ignorance and your post and your views are based on an ignorance that you're probably unwilling to accept, and I have no doubt you'll continue to tell me stuff out of context, picking and choosing facts, and presenting an argument that is not real. And all so the US can carry on doing what it is doing making the world a less safe place every year, and you'll blame someone else every time.

Firstly, it was combat that the US started, and started with lies. Just because you have a positive image of combat done "the proper way" doesn't mean that invading a foreign country based on lies, for other reasons that have to do with money, greed and the green eyed monster, doesn't mean that it is actually a positive thing.

Oh, you mean like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait?


No truth to any part of that statement."
So, Bush didn't invade Iraq?
Bush didn't tell people there were WMDs in Iraq?
How is this not the truth?

In the real world Iraq was invaded (by a coalition of nations, including Islamic) as a direct result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (including attacks on US forces there). The conflict continued when Iraq violated it's cease-fire agreement. The invasion was conducted with the overwhelming support of the American People and government. Your perversion of history is simply deliberate revisionary propaganda.

 

[Flopper]

From here it looks like Europe is well into the process of becoming part of the Middle East and will soon be looking to Mecca for leadership. I'll pass.

The Muslim population of Europe is estimated to be 46 out of total population of 743 million. That's 6.1%.

The primary cause of the increase in Muslim migrants to Europe is the Syrian crisis. Almost 50% of the migrants come from Syria, mostly as refugees. As the war whines down and refugees return home migration rates will return to normal. Refugees unlike immigrants leave their home because the conditions become intolerable or they are forced to leave. Once those conditions significantly improve, 70% return home.

Maybe, but I doubt it. More likely it is a deliberate invasion.

Yes, they deliberately got themselves invaded, then deliberately caused chaos by making a power vacuum, then deliberately did all those other things like the Arab Spring that led to the Syrian conflict. Er... what?

Actually, if anyone did anything deliberate it was Bush W. The man seemed to want to create a new enemy that everyone could get behind, that would cause fear, that would unite the old allies, that would replace the USSR.

And they got it. He has caused so many problems for the normal person, it's ridiculous, and all so the right can feel good about themselves and find it easier to get elected. Oh, fucking wonderful.

You obviously have problems understanding cause and effect. Terrorists deliberately create terror; it's what they do. They also create anger that results in enemies. That's also what they do. Don't want new enemies? Don't earn them.

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

History is always written by the winner. However, when it comes to the Iraqi invasion, it's pretty difficult to paint the US as the good guys. Iraq was never a serious threat to the US and would have probably been a US ally in the fight against terrorism if we hadn't invaded their country.

 

[rhodescholar]

European Parliament votes to end visa-free travel for Americans

"European Parliament votes to end visa-free travel for Americans"

Yep, Americans may no longer be able to go to the Schengen Zone without a visa. After all the problems EU citizens have been having, especially if they're Muslims, the EU is fight back. The US is losing its allies very, very quickly.

LOL, when the US pulls the last of its tanks and forces out of the EU, and those assholes have to actually spend money on defense instead of imported muslim filth - THEN we'll see just how arrogant those fucking turds are as they sip their wines enjoying their age 50 retirements paid for by the US taxpayer. Maybe they won't have so much cash to give to pro-fakestinian NGOs to undermine Israel every year.

They can go fuck themselves ten times over.

 

[rhodescholar]

And the EU will probably find that it is the leader, and the US will just get left behind.

Sure it will, once Germany spends more than 1.1% of its GDP on defense instead of Merkel's new favorite pet muslims raping across the country.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The Muslim population of Europe is estimated to be 46 out of total population of 743 million. That's 6.1%.

The primary cause of the increase in Muslim migrants to Europe is the Syrian crisis. Almost 50% of the migrants come from Syria, mostly as refugees. As the war whines down and refugees return home migration rates will return to normal. Refugees unlike immigrants leave their home because the conditions become intolerable or they are forced to leave. Once those conditions significantly improve, 70% return home.

Maybe, but I doubt it. More likely it is a deliberate invasion.

Yes, they deliberately got themselves invaded, then deliberately caused chaos by making a power vacuum, then deliberately did all those other things like the Arab Spring that led to the Syrian conflict. Er... what?

Actually, if anyone did anything deliberate it was Bush W. The man seemed to want to create a new enemy that everyone could get behind, that would cause fear, that would unite the old allies, that would replace the USSR.

And they got it. He has caused so many problems for the normal person, it's ridiculous, and all so the right can feel good about themselves and find it easier to get elected. Oh, fucking wonderful.

You obviously have problems understanding cause and effect. Terrorists deliberately create terror; it's what they do. They also create anger that results in enemies. That's also what they do. Don't want new enemies? Don't earn them.

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

History is always written by the winner. However, when it comes to the Iraqi invasion, it's pretty difficult to paint the US as the good guys. Iraq was never a serious threat to the US and would have probably been a US ally in the fight against terrorism if we hadn't invaded their country.

Another trip to fantasy land. Simple fact: Iraq started the war with it's unprovoked invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Saddam was himself an islamic terrorist who was proud to help finance other rabid terrorist groups with the money generated by Iraq's vast oilfields.
Yes, Virginia, the US was a good guy.

 

[Correll]

Yes, Americans spend a lot abroad, and Europeans spend a lot in the US.

20 Countries Where Tourists Spent the Most Money in 2012

"International tourists spent more money in the United States than any other country in 2012,"

Who stands to lose the most?

Both continents are going to lose out. We shouldn't be squabbling with Europe nor should they be starting shit with us. The best thing to do is for us to eliminate the visa requirement for those people visiting from those five EU nations and be done with it. This isn't worth the fight. I would imagine that's what will happen.

Yes, potentially that is so.

So why has it come to this point where the EU feels the need to do this? It's not hard to see why. They US has gone off the crazy end of the pool. But the US thinks it's better than everyone else. The EU lets in hicks from South Carolina, terrorism capital of the US, from Louisiana and Mississippi. They didn't even question the people of these countries.

Nope. YOu look at Rotherham, or Cologne and it's pretty obvious it is the World that has gone bat shit crazy and Trump is the US going sane.

There are problems, but that doesn't mean Trump is sane. Usually what happens is people who come to the fore are those who are "bat shit crazy" too, like Trump.

"WHat usually happens in that crazy people come to the fore?"

THat is the one of the most nonsensical statements I have ever heard.



[/QUOTE]
You want to believe he's the answer to the problems you see, but I don't think that's the case.[/QUOTE]

So, you disagree with me? Thanks for clearing that up. IN case someone here was uncertain about.

As for Cologne, well I was there over the summer, and it didn't seem that crazy to me. I guess it depends on what you want to believe.

Are you pretending to be unaware of the mass sexual assaults that took place their or just pretending to not believe they occurred?

Either way. YOu fail, and my point stands. THe world has gone crazy. Trump is the US going Sane.

But again, problems need solving, going crazy doesn't solve those problems.

THe problem is that the First World have become convinced that it has a moral obligation to allow culturally backwards and hostile aliens to enter their territory. Hence foul disgusting examples like Rotherham and Cologne.


Trump is the US going sane. OR if he walks back his Ban talk, the US going less crazy, at least.


If you want to disagree with that, you should explain WHY you disagree, instead of just stating your disagreement.

 

[Correll]

European Parliament votes to end visa-free travel for Americans

"European Parliament votes to end visa-free travel for Americans"

Yep, Americans may no longer be able to go to the Schengen Zone without a visa. After all the problems EU citizens have been having, especially if they're Muslims, the EU is fight back. The US is losing its allies very, very quickly.

Good riddance.

Well, except that it will cost Americans money. It'll probably end up in the US losing tourism, and less flights coming via Europe and when Americans want to go to Europe, they'll pay more.

Making it harder for Americans to go to Europe will cause the US to lose tourism?

Yeah.

It's not that hard to see why, is it?

If the EU stops US citizens from going visa free, what do you think the US govt is going to do?

Hard to say. YOu seem to be implying that a direct tit for tat reaction is the only possible reaction.

That is unsupported.

 

[Correll]

From here it looks like Europe is well into the process of becoming part of the Middle East and will soon be looking to Mecca for leadership. I'll pass.

The Muslim population of Europe is estimated to be 46 out of total population of 743 million. That's 6.1%.

The primary cause of the increase in Muslim migrants to Europe is the Syrian crisis. Almost 50% of the migrants come from Syria, mostly as refugees. As the war whines down and refugees return home migration rates will return to normal. Refugees unlike immigrants leave their home because the conditions become intolerable or they are forced to leave. Once those conditions significantly improve, 70% return home.

Maybe, but I doubt it. More likely it is a deliberate invasion.

Yes, they deliberately got themselves invaded, then deliberately caused chaos by making a power vacuum, then deliberately did all those other things like the Arab Spring that led to the Syrian conflict. Er... what?

Actually, if anyone did anything deliberate it was Bush W. The man seemed to want to create a new enemy that everyone could get behind, that would cause fear, that would unite the old allies, that would replace the USSR.

And they got it. He has caused so many problems for the normal person, it's ridiculous, and all so the right can feel good about themselves and find it easier to get elected. Oh, fucking wonderful.

You obviously have problems understanding cause and effect. Terrorists deliberately create terror; it's what they do. They also create anger that results in enemies. That's also what they do. Don't want new enemies? Don't earn them.

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

Wow. It's all America's fault?! What a fresh new insight from the Left!!!!

Hint: You can't kill us with boredom. Once we fall asleep, we stop hearing you, and are thus protected.

SO, your plan is FAIL!

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Muslim population of Europe is estimated to be 46 out of total population of 743 million. That's 6.1%.

The primary cause of the increase in Muslim migrants to Europe is the Syrian crisis. Almost 50% of the migrants come from Syria, mostly as refugees. As the war whines down and refugees return home migration rates will return to normal. Refugees unlike immigrants leave their home because the conditions become intolerable or they are forced to leave. Once those conditions significantly improve, 70% return home.

Maybe, but I doubt it. More likely it is a deliberate invasion.

Yes, they deliberately got themselves invaded, then deliberately caused chaos by making a power vacuum, then deliberately did all those other things like the Arab Spring that led to the Syrian conflict. Er... what?

Actually, if anyone did anything deliberate it was Bush W. The man seemed to want to create a new enemy that everyone could get behind, that would cause fear, that would unite the old allies, that would replace the USSR.

And they got it. He has caused so many problems for the normal person, it's ridiculous, and all so the right can feel good about themselves and find it easier to get elected. Oh, fucking wonderful.

You obviously have problems understanding cause and effect. Terrorists deliberately create terror; it's what they do. They also create anger that results in enemies. That's also what they do. Don't want new enemies? Don't earn them.

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

History is always written by the winner. However, when it comes to the Iraqi invasion, it's pretty difficult to paint the US as the good guys. Iraq was never a serious threat to the US and would have probably been a US ally in the fight against terrorism if we hadn't invaded their country.

The problem with modern times is that there are more sources of information. The English speaking world is not just the US, so to get information out is much easier. The problem is that as there is more information available, people seem to be running back to their holes to hide from it all, and will just take what they want to hear.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Muslim population of Europe is estimated to be 46 out of total population of 743 million. That's 6.1%.

The primary cause of the increase in Muslim migrants to Europe is the Syrian crisis. Almost 50% of the migrants come from Syria, mostly as refugees. As the war whines down and refugees return home migration rates will return to normal. Refugees unlike immigrants leave their home because the conditions become intolerable or they are forced to leave. Once those conditions significantly improve, 70% return home.

Maybe, but I doubt it. More likely it is a deliberate invasion.

Yes, they deliberately got themselves invaded, then deliberately caused chaos by making a power vacuum, then deliberately did all those other things like the Arab Spring that led to the Syrian conflict. Er... what?

Actually, if anyone did anything deliberate it was Bush W. The man seemed to want to create a new enemy that everyone could get behind, that would cause fear, that would unite the old allies, that would replace the USSR.

And they got it. He has caused so many problems for the normal person, it's ridiculous, and all so the right can feel good about themselves and find it easier to get elected. Oh, fucking wonderful.

You obviously have problems understanding cause and effect. Terrorists deliberately create terror; it's what they do. They also create anger that results in enemies. That's also what they do. Don't want new enemies? Don't earn them.

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

Wow. It's all America's fault?! What a fresh new insight from the Left!!!!

Hint: You can't kill us with boredom. Once we fall asleep, we stop hearing you, and are thus protected.

SO, your plan is FAIL!

So, your argument is to simply deflect? Wow.

Maybe if you actually looked at the truth, you'd see what is there. But you don't want to, do you?

 

[frigidweirdo]

European Parliament votes to end visa-free travel for Americans

"European Parliament votes to end visa-free travel for Americans"

Yep, Americans may no longer be able to go to the Schengen Zone without a visa. After all the problems EU citizens have been having, especially if they're Muslims, the EU is fight back. The US is losing its allies very, very quickly.

Good riddance.

Well, except that it will cost Americans money. It'll probably end up in the US losing tourism, and less flights coming via Europe and when Americans want to go to Europe, they'll pay more.

Making it harder for Americans to go to Europe will cause the US to lose tourism?

Yeah.

It's not that hard to see why, is it?

If the EU stops US citizens from going visa free, what do you think the US govt is going to do?

Hard to say. YOu seem to be implying that a direct tit for tat reaction is the only possible reaction.

That is unsupported.

Unsupported except that most countries on a similar economic level will have a similar visa policy for the opposing citizens.

Why would the US have visas to go to the EU, but let in EU citizens visa free to the USA? It would imply somehow that the US is inferior.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, Americans spend a lot abroad, and Europeans spend a lot in the US.

20 Countries Where Tourists Spent the Most Money in 2012

"International tourists spent more money in the United States than any other country in 2012,"

Who stands to lose the most?

Both continents are going to lose out. We shouldn't be squabbling with Europe nor should they be starting shit with us. The best thing to do is for us to eliminate the visa requirement for those people visiting from those five EU nations and be done with it. This isn't worth the fight. I would imagine that's what will happen.

Yes, potentially that is so.

So why has it come to this point where the EU feels the need to do this? It's not hard to see why. They US has gone off the crazy end of the pool. But the US thinks it's better than everyone else. The EU lets in hicks from South Carolina, terrorism capital of the US, from Louisiana and Mississippi. They didn't even question the people of these countries.

Nope. YOu look at Rotherham, or Cologne and it's pretty obvious it is the World that has gone bat shit crazy and Trump is the US going sane.

There are problems, but that doesn't mean Trump is sane. Usually what happens is people who come to the fore are those who are "bat shit crazy" too, like Trump.

"WHat usually happens in that crazy people come to the fore?"

THat is the one of the most nonsensical statements I have ever heard.

You want to believe he's the answer to the problems you see, but I don't think that's the case.[/QUOTE]

So, you disagree with me? Thanks for clearing that up. IN case someone here was uncertain about.

As for Cologne, well I was there over the summer, and it didn't seem that crazy to me. I guess it depends on what you want to believe.

Are you pretending to be unaware of the mass sexual assaults that took place their or just pretending to not believe they occurred?

Either way. YOu fail, and my point stands. THe world has gone crazy. Trump is the US going Sane.

But again, problems need solving, going crazy doesn't solve those problems.

THe problem is that the First World have become convinced that it has a moral obligation to allow culturally backwards and hostile aliens to enter their territory. Hence foul disgusting examples like Rotherham and Cologne.


Trump is the US going sane. OR if he walks back his Ban talk, the US going less crazy, at least.


If you want to disagree with that, you should explain WHY you disagree, instead of just stating your disagreement.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Mass sexual assaults. No, I'm not ignoring them. I not even saying that this influx of refugees has been positive. In Cologne I didn't see a problem, in Trier I met a German woman from somewhere in the south of Germany and she did say where she lives it has become more dangerous.

However the problem is that people are comparing news reports, rather than comparing reality. In Germany this is massive. This is a big issue. In the US when rape happens, it's ignored.

Alaska is the rape capital of the US, it has a rape rate 5 times higher than that of New York State. Rape statistics are notoriously difficult to compare, but it appears as if Alaska has a much higher rape rate than Germany does even with Germany's refugee population.

Report: refugees have not increased crime rate in Germany | News | DW.COM | 13.11.2015

"The German Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) announced that crimes committed by refugees stood at the same level as those committed by native Germans."

Yes, there are issues here. And no, I wouldn't have dealt with this situation in the manner Europe has dealt with it. But the problem is that some stories are news simply because they involve immigrants, whereas when they involve locals doing the crime, it's a local story.

The "terror attacks" last summer were a perfect example. Half of the "terror attacks" were simply Muslims committing a crime that had nothing to do with terrorism. One guy killed his pregnant partner. And yet this got turned into a terror attack.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, they deliberately got themselves invaded, then deliberately caused chaos by making a power vacuum, then deliberately did all those other things like the Arab Spring that led to the Syrian conflict. Er... what?

Actually, if anyone did anything deliberate it was Bush W. The man seemed to want to create a new enemy that everyone could get behind, that would cause fear, that would unite the old allies, that would replace the USSR.

And they got it. He has caused so many problems for the normal person, it's ridiculous, and all so the right can feel good about themselves and find it easier to get elected. Oh, fucking wonderful.

You obviously have problems understanding cause and effect. Terrorists deliberately create terror; it's what they do. They also create anger that results in enemies. That's also what they do. Don't want new enemies? Don't earn them.

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

You're going to equate killing the enemy during combat with the deliberate rape murder torture of innocents for fun and profit? Seriously? If so you are one sick puppy.

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

Absolutely. I can't believe sane person would think there is any question.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

No truth to any part of that statement.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

The truth is that terrorism is NOT warfare. This is a fact recognized and agreed upon by all civilized nations long since. Feel free to reference the Geneva, Haig, and other conventions.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US?

I don't care why a bunch of blood-thirsty barbarians hate the US and I am pleased to have them as enemies.

Wow, you're the one equating killing the enemy during combat and "rape murder torture" and not me. Don't try these tactics on me by throwing out nonsense.

Firstly, it was combat that the US started, and started with lies. Just because you have a positive image of combat done "the proper way" doesn't mean that invading a foreign country based on lies, for other reasons that have to do with money, greed and the green eyed monster, doesn't mean that it is actually a positive thing.

You can't think why a sane person would think that ISIS and the US are much different. Yes, ISIS is doing some pretty bad stuff. It gets all over the news every time they find something, whereas other stuff in other countries doesn't get reported. The media being biased and all that stuff, and you buy it hook line and sinkers.

The US committed torture in Iraq, we have seen the pictures. That's not better than ISIS. The US created the environment for ISIS to flourish, is that a positive thing? No, it is not.

"Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

No truth to any part of that statement."

So, Bush didn't invade Iraq?
Bush didn't tell people there were WMDs in Iraq?

How is this not the truth?

He didn't set up an environment that produced ISIS?
He didn't cause Islamic terrorism to exist in Iraq when there was clearly no Islamic terrorism, no al Qaeda etc in Iraq?

Come off it.

How is terrorism not warfare?

Again, I told you that the US decides to ridicule terrorism as not a legitimate way of fighting because the US has massive military superiority against these groups, so it wants to try and gain an advantage, and also keep the people happy by telling them what to think.

So, the US goes into Muslim countries and the Muslim countries can't fight with conventional methods, so they're just expected to lie down and take it up the ass from the US because the US has decided that you can only fight the "honorable way", like the US did by killing the Native Americans, like it did invading countries etc etc. Oh, come on, you can't seriously believe this propaganda, can you? Wait, sure you can, millions do all the time.

And then we get down to the issue.

You don't give a shit how this happened. You don't care how the problem started. You're perfectly happy to carry on in the manner you are without having the address the issues. We call this ignorance and your post and your views are based on an ignorance that you're probably unwilling to accept, and I have no doubt you'll continue to tell me stuff out of context, picking and choosing facts, and presenting an argument that is not real. And all so the US can carry on doing what it is doing making the world a less safe place every year, and you'll blame someone else every time.

Firstly, it was combat that the US started, and started with lies. Just because you have a positive image of combat done "the proper way" doesn't mean that invading a foreign country based on lies, for other reasons that have to do with money, greed and the green eyed monster, doesn't mean that it is actually a positive thing.

Oh, you mean like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait?


No truth to any part of that statement."
So, Bush didn't invade Iraq?
Bush didn't tell people there were WMDs in Iraq?
How is this not the truth?

In the real world Iraq was invaded (by a coalition of nations, including Islamic) as a direct result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (including attacks on US forces there). The conflict continued when Iraq violated it's cease-fire agreement. The invasion was conducted with the overwhelming support of the American People and government. Your perversion of history is simply deliberate revisionary propaganda.

Yes, like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

No, Iraq was not invaded in 2003 as a direct result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. That was 13 years later.

I think you seem to be getting two wars mixed up here.

There is no "perversion of history", nothing I have said is false.

 

[Zander]

Who gives a fuck? Get a visa. It's not a big deal.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Well... let's see

I'm not a tourist. Most of what I'd want to see was destroyed before or during the Great Wars or built over after them.

Nor do any European nations Recognized my right to self defense. I AM that American most Europeans hate.

So am I. As a consequence of my work I know a great many Europeans. The London office is my home office. They think of me as a barbarian. I could be wearing animal skins for all they cared. I own guns and carry a knife.

Screw them. So Americans have to get a visa big deal.

 

[9thIDdoc]

You obviously have problems understanding cause and effect. Terrorists deliberately create terror; it's what they do. They also create anger that results in enemies. That's also what they do. Don't want new enemies? Don't earn them.

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

You're going to equate killing the enemy during combat with the deliberate rape murder torture of innocents for fun and profit? Seriously? If so you are one sick puppy.

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

Absolutely. I can't believe sane person would think there is any question.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

No truth to any part of that statement.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

The truth is that terrorism is NOT warfare. This is a fact recognized and agreed upon by all civilized nations long since. Feel free to reference the Geneva, Haig, and other conventions.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US?

I don't care why a bunch of blood-thirsty barbarians hate the US and I am pleased to have them as enemies.

Wow, you're the one equating killing the enemy during combat and "rape murder torture" and not me. Don't try these tactics on me by throwing out nonsense.

Firstly, it was combat that the US started, and started with lies. Just because you have a positive image of combat done "the proper way" doesn't mean that invading a foreign country based on lies, for other reasons that have to do with money, greed and the green eyed monster, doesn't mean that it is actually a positive thing.

You can't think why a sane person would think that ISIS and the US are much different. Yes, ISIS is doing some pretty bad stuff. It gets all over the news every time they find something, whereas other stuff in other countries doesn't get reported. The media being biased and all that stuff, and you buy it hook line and sinkers.

The US committed torture in Iraq, we have seen the pictures. That's not better than ISIS. The US created the environment for ISIS to flourish, is that a positive thing? No, it is not.

"Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

No truth to any part of that statement."

So, Bush didn't invade Iraq?
Bush didn't tell people there were WMDs in Iraq?

How is this not the truth?

He didn't set up an environment that produced ISIS?
He didn't cause Islamic terrorism to exist in Iraq when there was clearly no Islamic terrorism, no al Qaeda etc in Iraq?

Come off it.

How is terrorism not warfare?

Again, I told you that the US decides to ridicule terrorism as not a legitimate way of fighting because the US has massive military superiority against these groups, so it wants to try and gain an advantage, and also keep the people happy by telling them what to think.

So, the US goes into Muslim countries and the Muslim countries can't fight with conventional methods, so they're just expected to lie down and take it up the ass from the US because the US has decided that you can only fight the "honorable way", like the US did by killing the Native Americans, like it did invading countries etc etc. Oh, come on, you can't seriously believe this propaganda, can you? Wait, sure you can, millions do all the time.

And then we get down to the issue.

You don't give a shit how this happened. You don't care how the problem started. You're perfectly happy to carry on in the manner you are without having the address the issues. We call this ignorance and your post and your views are based on an ignorance that you're probably unwilling to accept, and I have no doubt you'll continue to tell me stuff out of context, picking and choosing facts, and presenting an argument that is not real. And all so the US can carry on doing what it is doing making the world a less safe place every year, and you'll blame someone else every time.

Firstly, it was combat that the US started, and started with lies. Just because you have a positive image of combat done "the proper way" doesn't mean that invading a foreign country based on lies, for other reasons that have to do with money, greed and the green eyed monster, doesn't mean that it is actually a positive thing.

Oh, you mean like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait?


No truth to any part of that statement."
So, Bush didn't invade Iraq?
Bush didn't tell people there were WMDs in Iraq?
How is this not the truth?

In the real world Iraq was invaded (by a coalition of nations, including Islamic) as a direct result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (including attacks on US forces there). The conflict continued when Iraq violated it's cease-fire agreement. The invasion was conducted with the overwhelming support of the American People and government. Your perversion of history is simply deliberate revisionary propaganda.

Yes, like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

No, Iraq was not invaded in 2003 as a direct result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. That was 13 years later.

I think you seem to be getting two wars mixed up here.

There is no "perversion of history", nothing I have said is false.

You really ought to educate yourself. There were not two wars,only a single state of war that began when Iraq failed to comply with the ultimatum to withdraw from Kuwait and became more active again after it's continued failure to comply with the terms of the earlier cease-fire.
So (again) how can Iraq be anything but the bad guy when it's unprovoked invasion of a neighboring country started the war? Simple question that is not going away because you ignore it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

You're going to equate killing the enemy during combat with the deliberate rape murder torture of innocents for fun and profit? Seriously? If so you are one sick puppy.

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

Absolutely. I can't believe sane person would think there is any question.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

No truth to any part of that statement.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

The truth is that terrorism is NOT warfare. This is a fact recognized and agreed upon by all civilized nations long since. Feel free to reference the Geneva, Haig, and other conventions.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US?

I don't care why a bunch of blood-thirsty barbarians hate the US and I am pleased to have them as enemies.

Wow, you're the one equating killing the enemy during combat and "rape murder torture" and not me. Don't try these tactics on me by throwing out nonsense.

Firstly, it was combat that the US started, and started with lies. Just because you have a positive image of combat done "the proper way" doesn't mean that invading a foreign country based on lies, for other reasons that have to do with money, greed and the green eyed monster, doesn't mean that it is actually a positive thing.

You can't think why a sane person would think that ISIS and the US are much different. Yes, ISIS is doing some pretty bad stuff. It gets all over the news every time they find something, whereas other stuff in other countries doesn't get reported. The media being biased and all that stuff, and you buy it hook line and sinkers.

The US committed torture in Iraq, we have seen the pictures. That's not better than ISIS. The US created the environment for ISIS to flourish, is that a positive thing? No, it is not.

"Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

No truth to any part of that statement."

So, Bush didn't invade Iraq?
Bush didn't tell people there were WMDs in Iraq?

How is this not the truth?

He didn't set up an environment that produced ISIS?
He didn't cause Islamic terrorism to exist in Iraq when there was clearly no Islamic terrorism, no al Qaeda etc in Iraq?

Come off it.

How is terrorism not warfare?

Again, I told you that the US decides to ridicule terrorism as not a legitimate way of fighting because the US has massive military superiority against these groups, so it wants to try and gain an advantage, and also keep the people happy by telling them what to think.

So, the US goes into Muslim countries and the Muslim countries can't fight with conventional methods, so they're just expected to lie down and take it up the ass from the US because the US has decided that you can only fight the "honorable way", like the US did by killing the Native Americans, like it did invading countries etc etc. Oh, come on, you can't seriously believe this propaganda, can you? Wait, sure you can, millions do all the time.

And then we get down to the issue.

You don't give a shit how this happened. You don't care how the problem started. You're perfectly happy to carry on in the manner you are without having the address the issues. We call this ignorance and your post and your views are based on an ignorance that you're probably unwilling to accept, and I have no doubt you'll continue to tell me stuff out of context, picking and choosing facts, and presenting an argument that is not real. And all so the US can carry on doing what it is doing making the world a less safe place every year, and you'll blame someone else every time.

Firstly, it was combat that the US started, and started with lies. Just because you have a positive image of combat done "the proper way" doesn't mean that invading a foreign country based on lies, for other reasons that have to do with money, greed and the green eyed monster, doesn't mean that it is actually a positive thing.

Oh, you mean like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait?


No truth to any part of that statement."
So, Bush didn't invade Iraq?
Bush didn't tell people there were WMDs in Iraq?
How is this not the truth?

In the real world Iraq was invaded (by a coalition of nations, including Islamic) as a direct result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (including attacks on US forces there). The conflict continued when Iraq violated it's cease-fire agreement. The invasion was conducted with the overwhelming support of the American People and government. Your perversion of history is simply deliberate revisionary propaganda.

Yes, like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

No, Iraq was not invaded in 2003 as a direct result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. That was 13 years later.

I think you seem to be getting two wars mixed up here.

There is no "perversion of history", nothing I have said is false.

You really ought to educate yourself. There were not two wars,only a single state of war that began when Iraq failed to comply with the ultimatum to withdraw from Kuwait and became more active again after it's continued failure to comply with the terms of the earlier cease-fire.
So (again) how can Iraq be anything but the bad guy when it's unprovoked invasion of a neighboring country started the war? Simple question that is not going away because you ignore it.

Oh, how fucking convenient for you.

I didn't say Iraq and Saddam weren't bad guys. We're not talking about good v. bad here, we're talking different shades of black. But Iraq got kicked out and punished for what happened with Kuwait. Who the hell waits 13 years then does it? Er.. no one. And who does it but doesn't even say this is why they're doing it, instead going off about WMDs which didn't even exist. And they used people's testimony in the Senate who hadn't even been in Iraq in 10 years. Come off it, don't tell me I need to educate myself when you come up with this unsupported crap.

 

[Correll]

Maybe, but I doubt it. More likely it is a deliberate invasion.

Yes, they deliberately got themselves invaded, then deliberately caused chaos by making a power vacuum, then deliberately did all those other things like the Arab Spring that led to the Syrian conflict. Er... what?

Actually, if anyone did anything deliberate it was Bush W. The man seemed to want to create a new enemy that everyone could get behind, that would cause fear, that would unite the old allies, that would replace the USSR.

And they got it. He has caused so many problems for the normal person, it's ridiculous, and all so the right can feel good about themselves and find it easier to get elected. Oh, fucking wonderful.

You obviously have problems understanding cause and effect. Terrorists deliberately create terror; it's what they do. They also create anger that results in enemies. That's also what they do. Don't want new enemies? Don't earn them.

What is a terrorist? What's the difference between a terrorist and a nation state?

When the US invaded Iraq, then caused havoc, was this better than what ISIS has done?

A terrorist group is one that has been declared so by a nation. But can a terrorist state declare that the US is a terrorist nation?

If you look at the label and judge by the label, then what?

The US got something like 1 million people killed in Iraq. These terrorists are killing like dozens of people, and someone the US is seen as the good guy.

It's the cowboys and injuns effect. The Injuns were the bad guys, protecting their land from an invading force. The cowboys were the good guys committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Hmmmm, it's all about how you tell the story, many people just want to believe something, so you tell it to them in that way and then they're on your side.

Bush invaded Iraq telling people all about WMDs. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, the people wanted to believe, Bush then got justification for his vile act and then set about creating Islamic terrorism in the country where it hadn't existed before.

Terrorists could quite easily be called Guerrillas. They're fighting a war, they're willing to do in a non-traditional manner because they know they can't compete. The US then tells everyone that those who don't fight by their rules are bad, because the US is comfortable with their rules, and isn't comfortable when people break the rules.

You say don't earn enemies if you don't want enemies. Who created the enemy? Why do the Muslim extremists hate the US? It can't be because the US stayed at home. The US has been in Muslim countries playing politics since the end of WW2. They caused problems in Iran, Iraq, Syria etc etc. It wasn't the Muslims going to America causing the problems.

Wow. It's all America's fault?! What a fresh new insight from the Left!!!!

Hint: You can't kill us with boredom. Once we fall asleep, we stop hearing you, and are thus protected.

SO, your plan is FAIL!

So, your argument is to simply deflect? Wow.

Maybe if you actually looked at the truth, you'd see what is there. But you don't want to, do you?

Pointing out that your argument is the same old boring lefty bullshit of Blame America is not a deflection, it is a dismissal.