US Needs to Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS, NOW.

[Camp]

I have no objection for selling boots to Muslims who want to fight other Muslims who are terrorist. However, they seem to prefer light weight sport type footwear such as athletic type shoes and sandals.

 

[Indofred]

The OP should be the first set of boots on the ground. And anyone like him. If you want to fight, go do it. Stop demanding others do it while you armchair QB events 1,000s of miles away.

That's the big problem in America.
War is something on TV, not reality.
The pro war lot would change their minds if it was on American soil.

 

[georgephillip]

Yeah. Everybody is war weary. Oh yeah. Well, that's been the popular thought for a few years now (even though there's been less deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan over 13 years, than a single World War II battle). Well, I'm afraid to say folks, that little notion has very quickly gone out of style. As they used to say in college, "form follows function" Well, the function now has changed from "Bush just wants to get oil", and "Obama will get us out of there", to "fight them there now, or fight them here very soon." Every national security expert agrees that ISIS fully intends to attack the US, once it accomplishes it's goals in the Middle East. Looking at all the relevant variables, it's hard to make the case that they couldn't attack here, and impose massive genocide + massive structural damage. Guess what folks > The "war weary" era is now over.

ISIS has tons of money (to purchase bombs, nukes, biological weapons, gas, and bribe traitors). On top of that, the "Open Target" (name of the book that former Homeland Security Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin wrote a few years ago) hasn't gotten much less open, since Ervin wrote that book. Have the ports gotten better since Lou Dobbs exposed their vulnerable status? (5% of shipping containers being inspected) Are water treatment plants (containing Chlorine tanks) any better secured than they have been (with a lone unarmed, security guard). Do all citizens have gas masks ? Are all streets surveilled with street camera/recorders ? Do we even come close to the level of security that is practiced routinely in Israel ?

Many more questions than these could be asked, and all with the same qualitative result. That we in America, are not well prepared for a well-organized, well-financed military force, coming here and attacking us, with 2014 methodology.

Conclusion ? Time for Obama to get past the 2007 notion of removing troops from the Middle East and "no boots on the ground" which got him elected in 2008, and get up to speed. This is 2014. There is a real threat to America talking place before our eyes, and this is no time to play political games, or cling to outdated mantras. Obama's "no boots on the ground" is as dead as a doornail. The US needs to go after ISIS in Iraq, in Syria, and wherever they are, and obliterate them, and we need to do it with whatever it takes, and it looks that that includes ground troops, and we need to do it NOW.

Because "boots on the ground" worked so well in Iraq? It's time to break up the military industrial congressional complex and start spending war money on domestic needs:

"The total debt of all state governments in the U.S. is now $130 billion.

"The U.S. will spend $170 billion on our wars in Iraq-Afghanistan-Pakistan this year.

Forty-six states in the US today are in fiscal crisis.

"We must demand that our Congressional delegation vote against any further war spending and that they become leaders in the Congress on this important issue.

"We must also urge all elected officials (local, state, and federal) to speak out against continued war spending... demand that we Bring Our War $$ Home now.

Bring Our War Home

YES, because boots on the ground worked very well in Iraq. That's right. Iraq was under control of the Iraq govt supported by US troops. It remained that way until the troops left. THEN, things went awry, as ISIS moved into the vacuum.

And if you ignore the ISIS threat, you'll be bringing the war home all right. With nuclear bombs, poison gas, and deadly biological agents sweeping through American cities.

For whom do you imagine "boots on the ground worked very well in Iraq?" Certainly not the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died since March of 2003? Maybe you're referring to the millions of Iraqis who have become displaced since that time? IS would not even exist today absent the US invasion of Iraq, and your solution is to repeat the same action that enabled the extremists to come to power? Which side are you on...Halliburton's?

Haliburton is an outdated, long overused ploy. Don't be ridicuolous. As for ISIS, they don't need a US invasion of Iraq. They've got the Koran. The marauding Muslims who killed 270 million non-Muslims around the world didn't need a "US invasion of Iraq" for their attacks, did they ?

Attacks by Muslims upon non-Muslims >>

Basra attacked/conquered - 634 AD

Damascus attacked/conquered - 635 AD

Ctesiphon attacked/conquered - 636 AD

Alexandria attacked/conquered - 641 AD

Sicily attacked/conquered - 666 AD

Kabul attacked/conquered - 670 AD

Jerusalem attacked/conquered - 687 AD

Carthage attacked/conquered - 698 AD

Southern Spain attacked/conquered - 711 AD

Narbonne (Southern France) attacked/conquered - 720 AD

Battle of Poitiers (France) - Muslim advance halted - 732 AD

Armenia attacked/conquered - 1064 AD

Battle of Manzikert - 1071 AD

Nicaea attacked/conquered - 1331 AD

Kosovo attacked/conquered - 1389 AD

Bulgaria attacked/conquered - 1393 AD

Constantinople attacked - 1453 AD

Greece attacked/conquered - 1460 AD

Belgrade attacked/conquered - 1521 AD

Siege of Vienna (attacked) - Muslim advance halted - 1683 AD

Many more after.

So how does the number of North Americans killed by marauding Muslims compare with the number of Muslims maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated by greedy Christians in the current century?

 

[georgephillip]

Yeah. Everybody is war weary. Oh yeah. Well, that's been the popular thought for a few years now (even though there's been less deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan over 13 years, than a single World War II battle). Well, I'm afraid to say folks, that little notion has very quickly gone out of style. As they used to say in college, "form follows function" Well, the function now has changed from "Bush just wants to get oil", and "Obama will get us out of there", to "fight them there now, or fight them here very soon." Every national security expert agrees that ISIS fully intends to attack the US, once it accomplishes it's goals in the Middle East. Looking at all the relevant variables, it's hard to make the case that they couldn't attack here, and impose massive genocide + massive structural damage. Guess what folks > The "war weary" era is now over.

ISIS has tons of money (to purchase bombs, nukes, biological weapons, gas, and bribe traitors). On top of that, the "Open Target" (name of the book that former Homeland Security Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin wrote a few years ago) hasn't gotten much less open, since Ervin wrote that book. Have the ports gotten better since Lou Dobbs exposed their vulnerable status? (5% of shipping containers being inspected) Are water treatment plants (containing Chlorine tanks) any better secured than they have been (with a lone unarmed, security guard). Do all citizens have gas masks ? Are all streets surveilled with street camera/recorders ? Do we even come close to the level of security that is practiced routinely in Israel ?

Many more questions than these could be asked, and all with the same qualitative result. That we in America, are not well prepared for a well-organized, well-financed military force, coming here and attacking us, with 2014 methodology.

Conclusion ? Time for Obama to get past the 2007 notion of removing troops from the Middle East and "no boots on the ground" which got him elected in 2008, and get up to speed. This is 2014. There is a real threat to America talking place before our eyes, and this is no time to play political games, or cling to outdated mantras. Obama's "no boots on the ground" is as dead as a doornail. The US needs to go after ISIS in Iraq, in Syria, and wherever they are, and obliterate them, and we need to do it with whatever it takes, and it looks that that includes ground troops, and we need to do it NOW.

When will you be signing up to go? You could probably go join the Iraqi army and give them a hand.

It's not our fight. They are a threat to Turkey - let Erdogan send in his army. ISIS would be gone in a week.

Or let the Saudis do some bombing runs with the F-16s that we sold them.

Or the Egyptians with the F-16s we sold them.

Or the Jordanians, with the F-16s we sold them.

Get it?

What I get is that we already letting all those countries do that. We're not stopping them. But do you see them doing it ?

As for me I was "signing up" in April 1964, and served 5 years, until 1969. Frankly, if the USA would let me, I WOULD go there and fight, but the consensus is I'm too old now. But I did it when I was young.

Did your efforts result in a better, more prosperous America, or did you just want to test your "courage" without caring how many innocent human lives you helped to destroy?

 

[georgephillip]

Interesting article on ISIS
The Covert Origins of ISIS
Would it interest you to know who helped these psychopaths rise to power? Would it interest you to know who armed them, funded them and trained them? Would it interest you to know why?
The Covert Origins of ISIS UPDATED 9.03.14 SCG News

"I think it's going to turn out maybe this weekend in a new special that Brett Baer is going to have Friday that's gonna show some of those weapons from Benghazi ended up in the hands of ISIS. So we helped build ISIS."

From Iraq to Libya to Syria and on to Lebanon (or Ukraine?) We need to find a way to tax War into extinction before War exterminates humanity.

The Covert Origins of ISIS UPDATED 9.03.14 SCG News

 

[candycorn]

So we wipe them out...hold elections...they elect another theocrat who has to hate America to get votes..

No way.

 

[protectionist]

Not at all like it. Because the Vietnamese were no threat to America. ISIS is.

I suggest you just hide under your bed, you pussy.

After having served 5 years in the Army, you don't get to call me "pussy", and I do get to call You >>

Now that that's settled, I guess we can also ascertain that YOU are the coward here, because you're afraid to fight ISIS. So maybe you can take your own suggestion.

 

[protectionist]

Yep, we need to, but the thing that will be hardest is convincing Muslims that the Earth is not theirs to rule alone with their religion forced upon the human inhabitants...

Perhaps you could stop invading Muslim lands, supporting mass murder of Muslims and stop all the hate shit.
There were no attacks on the US by Muslims until you started to interfere and kill them.
Now, I await the Barbary pirates to come up. One idiot always tries to point that out, but neglects to mention many were Christians and Jews, and it was just piracy, not just targeted at America.

Attacks by Muslims upon non-Muslims >>

Basra attacked/conquered - 634 AD

Damascus attacked/conquered - 635 AD

Ctesiphon attacked/conquered - 636 AD

Alexandria attacked/conquered - 641 AD

Sicily attacked/conquered - 666 AD

Kabul attacked/conquered - 670 AD

Jerusalem attacked/conquered - 687 AD

Carthage attacked/conquered - 698 AD

Southern Spain attacked/conquered - 711 AD

Narbonne (Southern France) attacked/conquered - 720 AD

Battle of Poitiers (France) - Muslim advance halted - 732 AD

Armenia attacked/conquered - 1064 AD

Battle of Manzikert - 1071 AD

Nicaea attacked/conquered - 1331 AD

Kosovo attacked/conquered - 1389 AD

Bulgaria attacked/conquered - 1393 AD

Constantinople attacked - 1453 AD

Greece attacked/conquered - 1460 AD

Belgrade attacked/conquered - 1521 AD

Siege of Vienna (attacked) - Muslim advance halted - 1683 AD

Many more after.

Perhaps you could also mention Jewish attacks and occupations.
Map of the Nations Defeated by King David Bible History Online

David conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made it his capital and center of worship. He expanded his kingdom by victories over the Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites, and suppressed many rebellions.

What, the Jews weren't always there, they stole it in the first place.
What the fuck are you moaning about?

YOU KNOW what I'm moaning about, Mohas of jihad mmed. So don't play dumb with me. How about 1400 years of jihad, and killing 270 million people around the world, which no religion, cult, or nation even comes close to.

 

[protectionist]

If Isis wants war with us. They're welcome to invade.

No they're not. We are not well equipped or set up to repel a 2014 type of invasion. We'd have 9-11s, Boston Marathons, and Fort Hoods going on all over the place, intermixed with suicide bombers, and quite possibly nuclear bombs going off too. You want all that ? Better to obliterate this cancer over in the ME.

There is a gun behind every blade of grass. The libs will love us gun owners when they huddle up behind us as we mow down any ISIS invasions on main street USA

-Geaux

Nice thought, but plenty of people in Boston were armed the day of the Boston Marathon bombings. The Tsanaev boys still succeeded in pulling off a bombing. The Beltway sniper killed 19 people. And guns in their pockets didn't help the victims of 9-11. Or the London and Madrid subway bombings, or the gas attack in Japan.

And your point?

-Geaux

What's the matter ? Little light bulb in your head went out ? Anybody can see the point. Point is no matter how armed we are, terrorists can sneak around, and still attack in a multitude of ways.

 

[protectionist]

Not at all like it. Because the Vietnamese were no threat to America. ISIS is.

You attacked Vietnam, murdering thousands of people and, when you attacked Muslim countries, you laid the seeds for fools such as IS.
The threat to America, is purely because America attacked first.
Like all bullies, you cry when someone hits back.

I did not attack anyone in Vietnam, and neither did the American people, whose Congress never declared war there. And the threat to America, is NOT because of America attacking anywhere. It is because of the Koran and the lunatics who subscribe to its madness. Attacks against America are not "hits back". They are a continuation of the moronic, and insane jihad that has been going on for 1400 years.

 

[protectionist]

US Needs to Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS, NOW.

No we need to butt out.

And wait for ISIS to arrive HERE in America, only much stronger, due to the increased wealth and power they are gaining with every passing day. Is that what I understand you to be saying ?

Yeah they'll load up their Atlantic fleet and steam on over lol.

No they'll arrive with passports on jet planes, and then calmly, infect your neigborhood with contagious lethal bacteria, choke it with poison gas, blow it to bits with bombs (maybe nuclear), and show up in shopping malls firing machine guns, and tossing hand grenades. Got it now ?

 

[protectionist]

Nice thought, but plenty of people in Boston were armed the day of the Boston Marathon bombings. The Tsanaev boys still succeeded in pulling off a bombing. The Beltway sniper killed 19 people. And guns in their pockets didn't help the victims of 9-11. Or the London and Madrid subway bombings, or the gas attack in Japan.

And your point?

-Geaux

His point? More war, more government, more surveillence, report your neighbors; you know what a paradise East Germany was, they had nothing to fear from world wide terror.

More national security defending the nation. Attackers would of course oppose this. Are you one of them ?

 

[protectionist]

No----there is no reason to spill US blood there. NONE.

There or HERE. I'll choose there.

No----there is no reason to spill US blood there. NONE.

There or HERE. I'll choose there.

WOW this is like Kennedy and Johnson trying to explain why we had to stop communism in Viet Nam.

Not at all like it. Because the Vietnamese were no threat to America. ISIS is.

Apparently so was Communism

No it wasn't. Not from Vietnam anyway.

 

[protectionist]

Yeah. Everybody is war weary. Oh yeah. Well, that's been the popular thought for a few years now (even though there's been less deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan over 13 years, than a single World War II battle). Well, I'm afraid to say folks, that little notion has very quickly gone out of style. As they used to say in college, "form follows function" Well, the function now has changed from "Bush just wants to get oil", and "Obama will get us out of there", to "fight them there now, or fight them here very soon." Every national security expert agrees that ISIS fully intends to attack the US, once it accomplishes it's goals in the Middle East. Looking at all the relevant variables, it's hard to make the case that they couldn't attack here, and impose massive genocide + massive structural damage. Guess what folks > The "war weary" era is now over.

ISIS has tons of money (to purchase bombs, nukes, biological weapons, gas, and bribe traitors). On top of that, the "Open Target" (name of the book that former Homeland Security Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin wrote a few years ago) hasn't gotten much less open, since Ervin wrote that book. Have the ports gotten better since Lou Dobbs exposed their vulnerable status? (5% of shipping containers being inspected) Are water treatment plants (containing Chlorine tanks) any better secured than they have been (with a lone unarmed, security guard). Do all citizens have gas masks ? Are all streets surveilled with street camera/recorders ? Do we even come close to the level of security that is practiced routinely in Israel ?

Many more questions than these could be asked, and all with the same qualitative result. That we in America, are not well prepared for a well-organized, well-financed military force, coming here and attacking us, with 2014 methodology.

Conclusion ? Time for Obama to get past the 2007 notion of removing troops from the Middle East and "no boots on the ground" which got him elected in 2008, and get up to speed. This is 2014. There is a real threat to America talking place before our eyes, and this is no time to play political games, or cling to outdated mantras. Obama's "no boots on the ground" is as dead as a doornail. The US needs to go after ISIS in Iraq, in Syria, and wherever they are, and obliterate them, and we need to do it with whatever it takes, and it looks that that includes ground troops, and we need to do it NOW.

Because "boots on the ground" worked so well in Iraq? It's time to break up the military industrial congressional complex and start spending war money on domestic needs:

"The total debt of all state governments in the U.S. is now $130 billion.

"The U.S. will spend $170 billion on our wars in Iraq-Afghanistan-Pakistan this year.

Forty-six states in the US today are in fiscal crisis.

"We must demand that our Congressional delegation vote against any further war spending and that they become leaders in the Congress on this important issue.

"We must also urge all elected officials (local, state, and federal) to speak out against continued war spending... demand that we Bring Our War $$ Home now.

Bring Our War Home

YES, because boots on the ground worked very well in Iraq. That's right. Iraq was under control of the Iraq govt supported by US troops. It remained that way until the troops left. THEN, things went awry, as ISIS moved into the vacuum.

And if you ignore the ISIS threat, you'll be bringing the war home all right. With nuclear bombs, poison gas, and deadly biological agents sweeping through American cities.

For whom do you imagine "boots on the ground worked very well in Iraq?" Certainly not the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died since March of 2003? Maybe you're referring to the millions of Iraqis who have become displaced since that time? IS would not even exist today absent the US invasion of Iraq, and your solution is to repeat the same action that enabled the extremists to come to power? Which side are you on...Halliburton's?

Haliburton is an outdated, long overused ploy. Don't be ridicuolous. As for ISIS, they don't need a US invasion of Iraq. They've got the Koran. The marauding Muslims who killed 270 million non-Muslims around the world didn't need a "US invasion of Iraq" for their attacks, did they ?

Attacks by Muslims upon non-Muslims >>

Basra attacked/conquered - 634 AD

Damascus attacked/conquered - 635 AD

Ctesiphon attacked/conquered - 636 AD

Alexandria attacked/conquered - 641 AD

Sicily attacked/conquered - 666 AD

Kabul attacked/conquered - 670 AD

Jerusalem attacked/conquered - 687 AD

Carthage attacked/conquered - 698 AD

Southern Spain attacked/conquered - 711 AD

Narbonne (Southern France) attacked/conquered - 720 AD

Battle of Poitiers (France) - Muslim advance halted - 732 AD

Armenia attacked/conquered - 1064 AD

Battle of Manzikert - 1071 AD

Nicaea attacked/conquered - 1331 AD

Kosovo attacked/conquered - 1389 AD

Bulgaria attacked/conquered - 1393 AD

Constantinople attacked - 1453 AD

Greece attacked/conquered - 1460 AD

Belgrade attacked/conquered - 1521 AD

Siege of Vienna (attacked) - Muslim advance halted - 1683 AD

Many more after.

So how does the number of North Americans killed by marauding Muslims compare with the number of Muslims maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated by greedy Christians in the current century?

Since there are NO Muslims maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated by greedy Christians in the current century, the number of North Americans killed by marauding Muslims, would a much higher number (than zero). What Muslims have been maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated, have had that happen to them as a result of maniacal jihad, such as all the Palestinians killed because of Hamas lunacy.

 

[protectionist]

Yeah. Everybody is war weary. Oh yeah. Well, that's been the popular thought for a few years now (even though there's been less deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan over 13 years, than a single World War II battle). Well, I'm afraid to say folks, that little notion has very quickly gone out of style. As they used to say in college, "form follows function" Well, the function now has changed from "Bush just wants to get oil", and "Obama will get us out of there", to "fight them there now, or fight them here very soon." Every national security expert agrees that ISIS fully intends to attack the US, once it accomplishes it's goals in the Middle East. Looking at all the relevant variables, it's hard to make the case that they couldn't attack here, and impose massive genocide + massive structural damage. Guess what folks > The "war weary" era is now over.

ISIS has tons of money (to purchase bombs, nukes, biological weapons, gas, and bribe traitors). On top of that, the "Open Target" (name of the book that former Homeland Security Inspector General, Clark Kent Ervin wrote a few years ago) hasn't gotten much less open, since Ervin wrote that book. Have the ports gotten better since Lou Dobbs exposed their vulnerable status? (5% of shipping containers being inspected) Are water treatment plants (containing Chlorine tanks) any better secured than they have been (with a lone unarmed, security guard). Do all citizens have gas masks ? Are all streets surveilled with street camera/recorders ? Do we even come close to the level of security that is practiced routinely in Israel ?

Many more questions than these could be asked, and all with the same qualitative result. That we in America, are not well prepared for a well-organized, well-financed military force, coming here and attacking us, with 2014 methodology.

Conclusion ? Time for Obama to get past the 2007 notion of removing troops from the Middle East and "no boots on the ground" which got him elected in 2008, and get up to speed. This is 2014. There is a real threat to America talking place before our eyes, and this is no time to play political games, or cling to outdated mantras. Obama's "no boots on the ground" is as dead as a doornail. The US needs to go after ISIS in Iraq, in Syria, and wherever they are, and obliterate them, and we need to do it with whatever it takes, and it looks that that includes ground troops, and we need to do it NOW.

When will you be signing up to go? You could probably go join the Iraqi army and give them a hand.

It's not our fight. They are a threat to Turkey - let Erdogan send in his army. ISIS would be gone in a week.

Or let the Saudis do some bombing runs with the F-16s that we sold them.

Or the Egyptians with the F-16s we sold them.

Or the Jordanians, with the F-16s we sold them.

Get it?

What I get is that we already letting all those countries do that. We're not stopping them. But do you see them doing it ?

As for me I was "signing up" in April 1964, and served 5 years, until 1969. Frankly, if the USA would let me, I WOULD go there and fight, but the consensus is I'm too old now. But I did it when I was young.

Did your efforts result in a better, more prosperous America, or did you just want to test your "courage" without caring how many innocent human lives you helped to destroy?

I din't help to destroy ANY lives of anyone, anywhere. And YES, my efforts DID result in a better, more prosperous America, especially with the 5 bridges that I and my fellow soldiers built, to allow commerce to continue after the original bridges has been destroyed by hurricane, and in one case a crash into by a large ship.

 

[Politico]

US Needs to Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS, NOW.

No we need to butt out.

And wait for ISIS to arrive HERE in America, only much stronger, due to the increased wealth and power they are gaining with every passing day. Is that what I understand you to be saying ?

Yeah they'll load up their Atlantic fleet and steam on over lol.

No they'll arrive with passports on jet planes, and then calmly, infect your neigborhood with contagious lethal bacteria, choke it with poison gas, blow it to bits with bombs (maybe nuclear), and show up in shopping malls firing machine guns, and tossing hand grenades. Got it now ?

Ok let's go with that then lol.

 

[Desperado]

US Needs to Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS, NOW.

No we need to butt out.

And wait for ISIS to arrive HERE in America, only much stronger, due to the increased wealth and power they are gaining with every passing day. Is that what I understand you to be saying ?

Yeah they'll load up their Atlantic fleet and steam on over lol.

No they'll arrive with passports on jet planes, and then calmly, infect your neigborhood with contagious lethal bacteria, choke it with poison gas, blow it to bits with bombs (maybe nuclear), and show up in shopping malls firing machine guns, and tossing hand grenades. Got it now ?

But the Airports are guarded by TSA! So are you implying that TSA is worthless and cannot do the job they were hired to do? After all they have a giant database with a N0-Fly List which has the names of suspected terrorist.
I would also think that database would contain names of people that have gone into countries with ISIS training camps. So what would you have us do? Close our borders to anyone from those countries or has traveled to those countries in the last 5 years?

 

[Desperado]

No----there is no reason to spill US blood there. NONE.

There or HERE. I'll choose there.

No----there is no reason to spill US blood there. NONE.

There or HERE. I'll choose there.

WOW this is like Kennedy and Johnson trying to explain why we had to stop communism in Viet Nam.

Not at all like it. Because the Vietnamese were no threat to America. ISIS is.

Apparently so was Communism

No it wasn't. Not from Vietnam anyway.

Really so now you are saying our involvement in Vietnam was not to protect America from Communism as we all have been told? 50,000 Americans died for a lie! Then people wonder why you can't trust our government!

 

[JWBooth]

No----there is no reason to spill US blood there. NONE.

There or HERE. I'll choose there.

No----there is no reason to spill US blood there. NONE.

There or HERE. I'll choose there.

WOW this is like Kennedy and Johnson trying to explain why we had to stop communism in Viet Nam.

Not at all like it. Because the Vietnamese were no threat to America. ISIS is.

Apparently so was Communism

No it wasn't. Not from Vietnam anyway.

So, the US intervened in a civil war by propping up a government it installed, killed 55,000 of its own and untold numbers of civilians and opponent combatants not over an idealogical struggle but in a global game of my dick is bigger than yours.

This nonsense is why I counsel any young person to stay as far away from the military as possible.

 

[Indofred]

Yep, we need to, but the thing that will be hardest is convincing Muslims that the Earth is not theirs to rule alone with their religion forced upon the human inhabitants...

Perhaps you could stop invading Muslim lands, supporting mass murder of Muslims and stop all the hate shit.
There were no attacks on the US by Muslims until you started to interfere and kill them.
Now, I await the Barbary pirates to come up. One idiot always tries to point that out, but neglects to mention many were Christians and Jews, and it was just piracy, not just targeted at America.

Attacks by Muslims upon non-Muslims >>

Basra attacked/conquered - 634 AD

Damascus attacked/conquered - 635 AD

Ctesiphon attacked/conquered - 636 AD

Alexandria attacked/conquered - 641 AD

Sicily attacked/conquered - 666 AD

Kabul attacked/conquered - 670 AD

Jerusalem attacked/conquered - 687 AD

Carthage attacked/conquered - 698 AD

Southern Spain attacked/conquered - 711 AD

Narbonne (Southern France) attacked/conquered - 720 AD

Battle of Poitiers (France) - Muslim advance halted - 732 AD

Armenia attacked/conquered - 1064 AD

Battle of Manzikert - 1071 AD

Nicaea attacked/conquered - 1331 AD

Kosovo attacked/conquered - 1389 AD

Bulgaria attacked/conquered - 1393 AD

Constantinople attacked - 1453 AD

Greece attacked/conquered - 1460 AD

Belgrade attacked/conquered - 1521 AD

Siege of Vienna (attacked) - Muslim advance halted - 1683 AD

Many more after.

Perhaps you could also mention Jewish attacks and occupations.
Map of the Nations Defeated by King David Bible History Online

David conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made it his capital and center of worship. He expanded his kingdom by victories over the Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites, and suppressed many rebellions.

What, the Jews weren't always there, they stole it in the first place.
What the fuck are you moaning about?

YOU KNOW what I'm moaning about, Mohas of jihad mmed. So don't play dumb with me. How about 1400 years of jihad, and killing 270 million people around the world, which no religion, cult, or nation even comes close to.

I made a point that Israel invaded the land.
Please tell me why that invasion of old allows claim to the modern Palestine.