What Needs to be Done to Stop Islamic Terrorism is not Difficult to Understand.

[Hossfly]

ok so say we stop meddling,and it still goes on.....then what would you suggest?

The Middle East is about 100 years behind the West, and it must go through a transition similar to what the West went through, which was extremely destructive and bloody (WWI and WWII). I just don't see any way around that.

So our best policy would probably be to stay as much out of the way of that transition as possible, and wait for the Arabs to come out the other side.

Good idea but what about their devotion to Sharia?

What about it?

You are attempting to write large the extremists version of Sharia. That would be like trying to place the entire US Christian population under the tenets of the extremist Christian KKK.

What about it? Sharia keeps Muslims in the 7th Century. Ask any Imam.

 

[g5000]

ok so say we stop meddling,and it still goes on.....then what would you suggest?

The Middle East is about 100 years behind the West, and it must go through a transition similar to what the West went through, which was extremely destructive and bloody (WWI and WWII). I just don't see any way around that.

So our best policy would probably be to stay as much out of the way of that transition as possible, and wait for the Arabs to come out the other side.

Good idea but what about their devotion to Sharia?

What about it?

You are attempting to write large the extremists version of Sharia. That would be like trying to place the entire US Christian population under the tenets of the extremist Christian KKK.

What about it? Sharia keeps Muslims in the 7th Century. Ask any Imam.

Did I not just say they were a century behind us?

100 years, not 1400.

Good old Christian America used to hang horse thieves a hundred years ago, and lynch negroes less than a hundred years ago.

 

[Harry Dresden]

ok so say we stop meddling,and it still goes on.....then what would you suggest?

The Middle East is about 100 years behind the West, and it must go through a transition similar to what the West went through, which was extremely destructive and bloody (WWI and WWII). I just don't see any way around that.

So our best policy would probably be to stay as much out of the way of that transition as possible, and wait for the Arabs to come out the other side.

ok.....so are we to just shrug our shoulders with any attacks on us waiting for them to "transition?"...........because a retaliation by us would be interpreted by their lunatics as just another attack on muslims.....

Why would they attack us if we left the Middle East?

The extremists are trying to take over the Middle East, and they want us out so they can get down to that business.

If we left, that would force the Arab nations to deal with their own problems.

and after they conquer the ME, what area would be next?......will we protect Israel? because you know they will come for them...........people who like to conquer and want power and think that anyone who is not like them are inferiors will want more.....we have seen this many times in the past.....they may have hundreds of them in this country right now....whether we like it or not we may have gone past the point of no return.....

 

[bendog]

LOL What?

Say Sparky, the Soviet Union was a major sponsor of Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Was that because these were all Laissez Faire Capitalist nations?

Soviet Union?

Ever heard of them?

NOT FOCKING RECENTLY

 

[Uncensored2008]

NOT FOCKING RECENTLY

So you think 20 years is ancient history?

 

[Brain357]

Islamic terrorism against the US started when we began meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries.

That is how you stop it. Stop meddling.

That is complete nonsense. Buying oil from the Middle East is 'meddling' in some minds, so it cant be helped.

And terroism is not a justifiable response to mere 'meddling'.

Why do people have to continue to remind you Marxist libtards to stop blaming the victim on matters related to Islamic Terrorism?

Trump will tell you the iraq war started all this mess.

No he would not, not in context anyway. Themess started a couple of centuries ago with the founding of Wahhabiism.

So you don't even listen to him?

"Obviously the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right?” said Trump. "George Bush made a mistake, we can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty."

I agree that invading Iraq was a mistake, BUT THAT DID NOT CAUSE THE CURRENT ISLAMIC WAR AGAINST THE WEST, dude.

.@realDonaldTrump: Saddam Hussein killed terrorists; "Now Iraq is Harvard for terrorism" CNN.it/gocnn.it/1SsRqXI

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That is complete nonsense. Buying oil from the Middle East is 'meddling' in some minds, so it cant be helped.

And terroism is not a justifiable response to mere 'meddling'.

Why do people have to continue to remind you Marxist libtards to stop blaming the victim on matters related to Islamic Terrorism?

Trump will tell you the iraq war started all this mess.

No he would not, not in context anyway. Themess started a couple of centuries ago with the founding of Wahhabiism.

So you don't even listen to him?

"Obviously the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right?” said Trump. "George Bush made a mistake, we can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty."

I agree that invading Iraq was a mistake, BUT THAT DID NOT CAUSE THE CURRENT ISLAMIC WAR AGAINST THE WEST, dude.

.@realDonaldTrump: Saddam Hussein killed terrorists; "Now Iraq is Harvard for terrorism" CNN.it/gocnn.it/1SsRqXI

Thank Bush and Cheney...

 

[Brain357]

On Feb. 13, in the most recent debate, Trump said: “I said it loud and clear, ‘You’ll destabilize the Middle East.'” In the Sept. 16, 2015 debate, Trump claimed that he “fought very, very hard against us … going into Iraq,” saying he could provide “25 different stories” to prove his opposition.

 

[bendog]

G5000 raises an interesting point. Wahhabism may not have much truck with us so long as we're not weighing in on whether they're right or wrong on who's "a real" muslim and what they do to non-muslims where they live. But, as Syria shows, the ME is not an island to itself. A humanitarian catastrophe tied to religious intolerance can affect us all ... even in a god forsaken place like Rwanda or the Sudan. The question is WTF to do about it. And, those who think there are easy answers haven't even figured out the question.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is not a West vrs ISlam struggle.

This is a West vrs Marxism allied with Islamic Jihad struggle. The Islamacists of today are also Marxists in their economics.

You're not wrong. The democrat - Islamist coalition is clear.

Your statement is correct only in so far as the Marxists control the Democratic Party as they do now.

That can and must change to win this struggle.

Who in the leadership of the Democratic Party wants to eliminate all private ownership?

Do the Chicoms ban all private ownership? And yet they are still commies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is not a West vrs ISlam struggle.

This is a West vrs Marxism allied with Islamic Jihad struggle. The Islamacists of today are also Marxists in their economics.

You're not wrong. The democrat - Islamist coalition is clear.

Your statement is correct only in so far as the Marxists control the Democratic Party as they do now.

That can and must change to win this struggle.

Who in the leadership of the Democratic Party wants to eliminate all private ownership?

Do the Chicoms ban all private ownership? And yet they are still commies.

So Democrats are Marxists but only if you are allowed to decide what Marxism is.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you embrace 'blood for oil'?

Again, you switch victim and aggressor. We have the right to spill blood in our own defense and that of our allies.

btw, which of our allies that use oil from the Middle East do not have the capability of defending their own oil interests?

Potentially all of them, but in pursuit of Pax Americana we have talked them in to letting us pick up that responsibility, but that does not make us wrong to do so.

But I personally would be happy to see our allies shoulder more of this burden.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is not a West vrs ISlam struggle.

This is a West vrs Marxism allied with Islamic Jihad struggle. The Islamacists of today are also Marxists in their economics.

You're not wrong. The democrat - Islamist coalition is clear.

Your statement is correct only in so far as the Marxists control the Democratic Party as they do now.

That can and must change to win this struggle.

Who in the leadership of the Democratic Party wants to eliminate all private ownership?

Do the Chicoms ban all private ownership? And yet they are still commies.

So Democrats are Marxists but only if you are allowed to decide what Marxism is.

I did not define the Chicoms as communist, they did. Just because a group has realized that Marxism as an economic theory does not work does not mean that they are democratic capitalists; it only means that they are NOT stupid and blind.

The Marxists in the Democratic party are the socials MArxists and they have every intention of starting a violent revolution in this country. In fact they have already initiated it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

LOL What?

Say Sparky, the Soviet Union was a major sponsor of Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Was that because these were all Laissez Faire Capitalist nations?

Soviet Union?

Ever heard of them?

NOT FOCKING RECENTLY

Well, consider yourself to have just heard of them recently, doofus.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you embrace 'blood for oil'?

Again, you switch victim and aggressor. We have the right to spill blood in our own defense and that of our allies.

Was that a yes or a no?