Muslims behead yet another person

#402
#402
37L1 said:
212suspect_20140824_091941.jpg
Click to expand...

That's the guy they say did it. Now we have to find him & bring him to the US for a fair trial so Holder can sleep good at night knowing it's a fair trial & all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#408
#408
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Fox News is reporting this morning that the terrorist that beheaded James Foley has been id'd & is a 23 yo rapper from Britain. They gave a name but I can't spell it. So his cover has been reveled & the hunt for this terrorist is now in play. Obama administration wants to arrest this dude & bring him to America for trial.
Click to expand...

arrest and have a trial? He should be glad he's not a US citizen or else they would just execute him without all that nonsense
 
#409
#409
utvolpj said:
arrest and have a trial? He should be glad he's not a US citizen or else they would just execute him without all that nonsense
Click to expand...

You still think drones are a bad choice?

Cheaper than having a trial at $100,000 for a Hellfire strike. And probably way more gratifying than having him sit and rot in a cell for the rest of his life.
 
#410
#410
Grand Vol said:
You still think drones are a bad choice?

Cheaper than having a trial at $100,000 for a Hellfire strike. And probably way more gratifying than having him sit and rot in a cell for the rest of his life.
Click to expand...

I think they should just be consistent. Why say they want to capture and try him when that is not a courtesy extended to our own citizens?

I think the US needs to step back and truly evaluate who and why we're fighting. There seems to be zero thought into the ramifications of our actions
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#411
#411
utvolpj said:
I think they should just be consistent. Why say they want to capture and try him when that is not a courtesy extended to our own citizens?
Click to expand...

That's a very valid question PJ. Why is it this Administration wants to treat this like a criminal matter instead of locating him and dropping a Hellfire on his head? Or sending in some guys in the middle of the night and leaving nothing behind but dead bodies and shell casings as a warning not to touch American non-combatants?

Point being this is terrorism. And you don't fight terrorism by playing in the judicial system. You fight terrorism by reminding the other side if they do it to one of ours, we do it to twenty of theirs.

utvolpj said:
I think the US needs to step back and truly evaluate who and why we're fighting. There seems to be zero thought into the ramifications of our actions
Click to expand...

I'm not even going to get into this debate with you (again) since you continue to ignore the huge point that no matter if we pulled everyone home and took a pure isolationist/non-interventionist standpoint, we would still be a target. That's what happens when you are the big boy on the block. People like to take swipes at you. And you'll say "well, this wouldn't be this way if we hadn't gotten involved blah, blah blah." And to which it HAS happened and it's HISTORY and no matter what, they will still ATTACK us based on history alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#412
#412
Grand Vol said:
That's a very valid question PJ. Why is it this Administration wants to treat this like a criminal matter instead of locating him and dropping a Hellfire on his head? Or sending in some guys in the middle of the night and leaving nothing behind but dead bodies and shell casings as a warning not to touch American non-combatants?

Point being this is terrorism. And you don't fight terrorism by playing in the judicial system. You fight terrorism by reminding the other side if they do it to one of ours, we do it to twenty of theirs.
Click to expand...

because we don't have a clue what we're doing. US foreign policy is a series of contrary moves made by people who obviously have little to no contact with each other. Everyone sees a different threat and wants to bomb that group. There is no one with big-picture ability

Grand Vol said:
I'm not even going to get into this debate with you (again) since you continue to ignore the huge point that no matter if we pulled everyone home and took a pure isolationist/non-interventionist standpoint, we would still be a target. That's what happens when you are the big boy on the block. People like to take swipes at you. And you'll say "well, this wouldn't be this way if we hadn't gotten involved blah, blah blah." And to which it HAS happened and it's HISTORY and no matter what, they will still ATTACK us based on history alone.
Click to expand...

and you shouldn't since the only proven in this argument is that we intervene and they attack US interests. When has a non-interventionist policy been tried?

why did we prevent Syria from acting on ISIS? We protected rebel groups in Syria knowing that our actions would prevent Assad from using force on them. Now we're fighting those groups and fighting on the side of Assad? All within a years time? Brilliant

What would have happened if we stepped back and allowed the situation to play out?
 
#413
#413
utvolpj said:
and you shouldn't since the only proven in this argument is that we intervene and they attack US interests. When has a non-interventionist policy been tried?
Click to expand...

By the US? Probably since before...well, our entire history pretty much. As a minimum since 1898 in the Spanish-American War. That kind of set the tone for the entire 20th and 21st Centuries with foreign entanglements.

So we'd have to go back a long ways to get into our non-interventionist dream world.

Blame McKinley. McKinley lied, people died!

utvolpj said:
why did we prevent Syria from acting on ISIS? We protected rebel groups in Syria knowing that our actions would prevent Assad from using force on them. Now we're fighting those groups and fighting on the side of Assad? All within a years time? Brilliant
Click to expand...

Pretty much the way of the world over there. But you are saying we should have sat it out and allowed ISIS to overrun the Kurds? Because they eventually would have ended up in Iraq anyway. It was a matter of time.

utvolpj said:
What would have happened if we stepped back and allowed the situation to play out?
Click to expand...

There's a lot of tangents to this of course. But more than likely you would have had Iran step in and pretty much take over in Iraq. The Kurds would be swallowed up after intense fighting against both parties and every ally we have over there would have questioned whether or not the US would actually support them when push came to shove.

Which you'd love of course.
 
#414
#414
no I'm saying maybe we should have let Assad handle them when they were in Syria. Maybe we shouldn't have funneled weapons to the Assad opposition in the hopes they would be the only ones using them. We keep creating these vacuums and then seem surprised when things don't work out like we planned. US foreign policy is the anti-Midas. Maybe there are some who just might have a better understanding than the lifetime politicians and completely inexperienced leaders with their fingers on the trigger.
 
#415
#415
From what I understand, the Assad regime has been pretty content to let ISIS flourish. The thinking being that a strong ISIS could keep the FSA and jihadi groups opposed to ISIS in check. It's only been within the last week or so that Syria has stepped up its bombing campaign against ISIS positions, I suppose the intent being to show Americans that Syria can handle it and should stay out.
 
#418
#418
volprof said:
From what I understand, the Assad regime has been pretty content to let ISIS flourish. The thinking being that a strong ISIS could keep the FSA and jihadi groups opposed to ISIS in check. It's only been within the last week or so that Syria has stepped up its bombing campaign against ISIS positions, I suppose the intent being to show Americans that Syria can handle it and should stay out.
Click to expand...

Yeah from what I understand Assad's strategy was to let the Islamists fight the Free Syrian Army for him and in the process hopefully weaken both of them. Once the moderate factions have been eliminated he could then scream and shout that him maintaining power would be the lesser of two evils and then focus the Syrian military on fighting IS.
 
#425
#425
FLVOL69 said:
Where do you think they get converted/recruited at?
Click to expand...

As usual, I'm not really sure what your argument is other than just demeaning everyone else, but, I will say this: as far as America goes, thus far, our only Jihadi worries have been from foreign visitors, American Middle Easterners/Central Asian/South Asian (aka, typical Muslim places), and stupid white middle class disaffected little ****s who think, for some reason, that the world should revolve around themselves.

I have yet to see a black American Muslim participate in such things, although I'm sure it will happen at some point. If you wait long enough, anything is bound to happen.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top