SassyIrishLass
Diamond Member
- Mar 31, 2009
- 96,082
- 73,563
- 3,605
O.k., I see your point about firearms to a certain extent and agree with it.National Socialists were not Nationalists? Did they not target civilians?One man's terrorist is another man's nationalist, rebel, patriot. What does Iran want? Can it be satisfied with something that would persuade it to stop funding "soldiers" who take the war to innocent civilians in a non-war zone?
Obama's policy was to kill as few civilians as possible in this war against terrorism, for that very reason. It was frustrating for the military but it took the teeth out of "payback" as a justification for terrorists' slaughter of innocents.
I sure hope Trump is taking his briefings very, very seriously these days. I was never more than lukewarm about Obama's stance in all this, but now we're talking war with Iran? Over speed boats and a few unarmed missiles? I would look to the UN for some additional backup if Iran has actually violated the treaty. I don't know what would come next, but we would have much more authority if we weren't rising to the bait alone.
Wrong. Nationalists target the people in power, the military targets etc. Terrorists target civilians. Huge difference.
Yes, they were. But they were primarily a TOTALITARIAN government. Thus they can't be terrorists. They were far more efficient killers than any terrorist group could ever hope to be, but then that is also true of the Soviet Union and any other authoritarian government. Which is why ANY regulation on firearms, and the corresponding decrease in the civilian populations ability to defend itself, is a step towards authoritarianism.
But: I don't think ISIS has any regulations on firearms, they are a totalitarian government, and they are terrorists.
They have the simple regulation that they kill you if you are not one of them. Thus, the first thing they do, is disarm the populace upon arrival.
Say what?!?! Bbbut they are peaceful and tolerant