ISIS Must be Destroyed By the West

I'm sure most have by now seen the horrific news of what ISIS did to that poor Jordanian pilot. They are scum, the worst Iv'e seen in my lifetime. Unfortunately I see no alternative but for us, the West to destroy them, I don't think Arab countries will do anything about them, apart from maybe Jordan.
The argument goes that its not up to us to sort out middle eastern problems, especially after the previous Iraq war. However I feel ISIS threatens the West, terrorist plots are being discovered all the time, what will they be capable of if they grow any stronger? 9/11 type attacks? who knows.
Air Strikes are not enough, we need numerous countries, UK, US, Jordan, etc to send in troops and completely overrun and destroy them. Its disgraceful what they are getting away with. I think this war is far more justified than the previous Iraq war.

This conflict never would have escalated this bad if the Iraqi army actually fought ISIS instead of running away at the beginning phase.

And ISIS is the worlds responsibility now. These guys are influencing world terrorism. Their presence in the media is propaganda enough for crazy people in the west act like lone gunmen. And not to forget European members returning to the west. The middle-east isn't the only area in danger. So I agree Iraq and Syria need foreign intervention.

I hope that something will be done about these assholes before the people of the middle-east will suffer even more.

So they lit the guy up for shock value big deal.

Jordan has a women who explosive jack did not go off.

She is in Jordanian jail light her up

Go back to bombing them but this time use Napalm. Light them up.

They obviously think beheadings arent now shocking enough, they need to escalate the torture....absolutely disgusting. I cant understand how punishing an individual so badly for the (perceived) behaviour of nations/other religions forwards your cause. Isis can only be doing it to provoke a huge scale war in the hope that some nations, no doubt those supporting sharia law and broadly in line with isis ideologies, end up railing against their western allies.

Lessons have to be learned at some point though...the usa in particular through what seems to be its continual search for global hegemony for the last 70 years or so, seems to have a history of picking some dubious allies come enemies, training/arming groups who end up using the skills against them....the mudjahideen who were trained and financed to combat the russian threat, al qaeda who were trained and financed to fight in the balkans war (and in return tacitly permitted by the cia to continue their heroin trade into europe) and now isis who were trained and financed to fight the battle in Syria fairly recently. Thats without even touching on numerous other uprisings organised in Latin America (granted most of those dont have batshit religious ideolgies driving them towards guerilla warfare and are more often eventually dealt with by crippling sanctions if they dont play ball).

Why continually get into bed with these animals? The age old arguement, its was for the greater good to stop the spread of **add any religion/nation/ideology** or to rescue a nation from an evil dictator is just simply bullshit...smoke and mirrors. You just breed mistrust in anybody with half a brain and consistently create argueably greater threats to western societies. It does help the arms trade though I suppose....

They hung that women they should have burned her ass.

If we really went after them ISIS would end in a month or less. You have to have the will to do it right. Do it fast everything ends do it slow it never ends.

They are asking a move in the US

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4DOyAwN13U&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...government.html
The locals are starting to show more resistance.

good point about the Iraqi army, we never could trust them to fight, we had to do it all, George bush made a great mistake putting us in there, hope he's enjoying himself now, as we have to go back and try and fix his screw up. worst president in U.S. history. bar none.

Barack Obama may have surpassed Bush.

worst U.S presidents. five worst.
1- George bush
2- Lyndon Johnson
3- barak Obama
4- harry Truman
5- Abraham lincon

my humble opinion only.

Why is Lincoln and Truman on the list if you don't mind me asking? Bush, and Johnson I agree with. With Obama time will tell on everything he has done.

I did not think Kennedy was a good president.

Lincoln I thought he was a good President.

I thought Clinton in his first term was a terrible President. He moved up in the second term because he figured out it was a good move to work with the republicans in his second term.

Obama how much time do you need to know he was a waste.

Where's Nixon on your list, Binnie?

In the short time he had, he did a lot to shape the future. For me the worst President we ever had would be James Buchanan. Along with LBJ, Hoover, Harding, Carter, W. Bush, and Andrew Johnson.

What about Nixon? Morally he must be down there (probably just because his administration was unlucky enough to get caught).

Sorry Mal, just saw you mentioned him above..

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/world/u-s-...ticle-1.2104200

And that would make them the same as the ISS

You treat people like your treated except much worse. Then they will think twice about fucking with you.

The only thing he did wrong was try to cover up the break in. He did not order the break in.

Did he get us out of Vietnam? I seem to remember he did with Kissinger. Am I wrong about that?

FT...is that not how isis think at the moment? Its not really working for them....

Re nixon...he procrastinated for far too long over vietnam and needlessly wasted far more american lives than was necessary. I accept your point about watergate though, however it opened the public's eyes to just how underhand political parties/presidents can actually be and thats possibly had a negative impact on how many people have viewed politics since

It not working for them? There recruiting more then ever. They have an American women I wonder what they will do to her or have they don't it already.

They think we don't have the will to do anything about it, and we dont.

Their going to have a good time with her.

We lost what 60 thousand men. How did the cong treat our prisoners? Every time the Vietnam cong called a cease fire we said ok. They called cease fire to re supply not for peace talks.

Oh what was the enemy death count more or less?

Also, Kissinger is perhaps not an ideal candidate (an understatement) for someone who stops wars...he authorised the back door shipment of 90% of the weapons in 1975 for the Indonesian invasion/massacre in east timor, a key country in south east asia at the time, which resulted in the rape, torture and murder of 200,000 of the population.

Kissinger (just a coincidence i'm sure) was also on the board of Freeport Mcmoran, a major lobbyist in congress at the time which had the largest gold mining operation in the world.....based in Indochina.

What a hero.....

Theres plenty more examples around the world in which he's been directly responsible for atrocities.

Im not sure treating people much worse so they dont fuck with you is the best way forward, but I totally get your reasoning behind it, especially after recent events but history shows it doesnt work

Nixon was no better or no worse than any other politician. I was fifteen years old when Watergate broke, still in high school, and full of mock outrage just like the rest of my generation. It took me close to forty years to realize that they're all the same. Nixon got caught. That's the only difference.

Meanwhile, that fa***t-ass liberal Obama won't even utter the words "Islamic extremism."

It's disgraceful Ivy!

There is a nerdy metalhead in a few of my classes. He has a long, badly maintained, unkempt beard.

I actually find it a bit offensive considering what's going on in the world.

I know he means no harm but he looks like a joke. People are taking the piss out of him and saying he looks like a terrorist.

These people have proven themselves to be as dangerous as the Nazis. And even if they only represent a very small portion of the overall Muslim population, it's still reprehensible that Obama refuses to identify them as Muslim Extremists.

Good comparison PB...comparable ideals with an added problem, the nazis, who obviously came close to achieving their goal, weren't in line with any ideology that half the world believed in (ie islam), these animals are. The advantage they have, and Im sure they are well aware of as its they're only real chance of seriously spreading sharia law bullshit, is if any spark they create catches and starts some global unrest. They know guerrilla warfare won't ultimately change the world to their way of thinking.

The sad fact is, the way we are going sooner or later, one of these groups will no doubt be successful to a greater extent sooner or later, just the law of averages

Islamic countries and their people outside of the Arab world are already against ISIS. The Arabs themselves should really start fighting ISIS from withing. A Kurdish friend of mine was in north-Iraq when ISIS was marching to his hometown. He said the Arabs were all celebrating the fact that ISIS was coming to liberate them. The locals support ISIS because they think they are a solution to the chaos the post-saddam era created. Also many in the north do this because they aren't happy with a Shia government who pushes away Sunni politicians while they are Sunni.
When the Arabs want to fight against ISIS then I think the west can intervene.

And you have to understand we Muslims see it as an insult to call terrorists as Muslims or Islamic, THEY ARE NOT Islamic or Muslim they are a disgrace and shame to our religion created and funded by the Saudis. Yes they keep repeating Islam, but their deeds show us that this is bullshit.

I said before in another thread that the Saudis funded, trained and commanded terrorists. Take a look at these articles.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...tify-court.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comm...ry-9602312.html

Yigido, I applaud you for saying that, just wish your fellow believers would shout as loud. They don't and they should, especially considering how easy it is for the rest of the world to draw conclusions in the current climate.

Where are all these expressions of outrage from the islamic communities throughout the world? I know it must be frustrating for people like yourself, but, like most right minded people, I draw a circle around all muslims when it comes to shit like this and expect them to get their house in order. Its not 1 or 2 people here, its hundreds of thousands at least that believe in this shit...

If your wife or husband embarrassed you in public because of their actions, would you just ignore it and say its nothing to do with you? No, you'd speak to them in private and sort it out!!!

Im trying to get some sort of analogy here..

Well put. A few bad apples and all that. But by the same token you can't make believe that they don't exist (a la Obama).

the Jordanians are coming at isis with all they have, this could be a turning point, where more arab countries really go in to scald their ass.

isis could be broken in a year if the arabs get it together, but, don't count on the Iraqi army. they run.

Nixon was for sure a evil man, I remember when he had the national guard kill demonstrators at kent st. university.

he's no 6, Truman is on my list because he was a klansman in Missouri before he was president, and after he dropped the atom bombs kicked up his heels with a big smile on his face, proving to me he never left the klan.

again, my opinion only.

Lincoln is on my list because he's a myth. he was nothing like the saint he's portrayed to be. the civil war should have been stopped much sooner than it was. in my mind he was a butcher.

only my opinion.

you know I never believed Lincoln went to war over the evil of slavery. There were other reasons.

Yet his likeness is on Mount Rushmore. I think there is a possibity that one day President Obama might get his likeness on Mount Rushmore as well.

What he's doing i spretty much the equivalent of refusing to identify the Nazis as Germans back in WWII.

I'm loving Jordan and their King more and more after this. This is what you do to a bully stand up to them! At least one country and leader is showing balls here!

the UN make me laugh in all this, 'we strongly condemn the actions of ISIS' 'we have found evidence of ISIS committing genocide and war crimes' All the while they do nothing about it!

Agree Nicky. The UN is useless and should be thrown out of New York City.

"Strongly condemn" lol, a joke eh! Thats reassuring for people eh! Isis will be shaking i their boots if the UN go in with fully loaded water pistols and tickle sticks

Can you imagine your local cops, instead of fighting crime and tackling criminals, just told you they strongly condemned it

I think everyone in Germany had to register in the Nazi party back then it was the law.

Great analogy.

I have to disagree with you Binnie. Truman was never in the Klan. He was approached and even considered joining but refused when he heard their stance on Catholics. He also integrated the military and was instrumental in creating the State of Israel and implementing the Marshal plan. Does not sound like a Klansman to me. Also, by dropping the bomb he saved countless lives since many believed the war would have moved to mainland China where even more people would have died. And do not think he took the dropping of the a bomb easily, he struggled with it and had to put on a strong face.

As to Lincoln...are you mad? Lincoln did not want the war at all and would have kept slavery in the South if it meant preserving the Union. Many in the north were tired of the war and wanted to let the south be its own entity and it was not until Gettysburg that people came on board. The last thing Lincoln wanted was bloodshed, but if he caved what would we be today? And how many more years of slavery in the south? Lincoln reached out with the olive branch more times than any man in modern history. Preserving the Union was a pretty big deal

The UN is too busy condemning Israel. The UN is a joke.

It's more of the same pedagogically correct bullshit the 'great leaders' of our modern society seem to forcefeed their masses: 'We condemn this, condemn that, that's bad of you to do son, cry cry cry'. All the while doing jack shit about the situation. A spoiled child kicks at an elderly man's leg, how do you react? You're going to say to the kid that you 'condemn' what he just did there? The shitbag probably doesn't even know what that word means.

They're politicians and I don't trust politicians, plain and simple. Most of them give a rat's ass what happens to the rest of world as long as they can keep their pockets filled. And to be honest I have committed egocentric acts myself, but at least I don't claim to 'be there for the people'.

And the world as we know it of course needs politics and it needs law and order, and religion (any religion) at its core is a beautiful thing as well, but I guess it's human nature to fuck all of that up.

have to disagree with you on both counts padrone, Truman admitted he was in the klan, he also presided over mccartyism which he refused to speak out against, nuch less stop,

Lincoln offered to let the south keep their slaves for forty years if they would surrender, this was 1863, he was determined to kill every man, woman, and child in the south to get his way.

to me nothing less than a butcher.

Wasn't Bird the guy in the senate for a thousand years a former Klan member. All the Democrates loved Bird.

Different party back then, to say the very least. The northern Democrats were much more like the Republicans of today. And the southern Democrats back then were bigger racists than the current conservatives ever were. But the current Dems still love to play the race card.

Actually if anything Dwight Eisenhower did his utmost to avoid the McCarthy topic and resided over the majority. I don't think McCarthy is particularly relevant to Truman or Eisenhower, but since his farewell address mentioning the Military Industrial Complex, Eisenhower has came as close to a saint in many CT's eyes as possible. Many of the accusations were levied against Trumans own Administration which he imo rightfully laughed off as baseless accusations, Dwight only really got involved when some assumed he was soft or even supportive of McCarthy. Again though i fail to see how this addresses anything Padrone said, or how McCarthy is relevant to Truman.

So by your own admission Lincolns only goal was to preserve the Union and Slavery was a secondary matter for him. Yet the Confederates who declared their intent to secede as soon as Lincoln was elected, and started the war at FT.Sumter, who just to add had numerous references to not only preserving but expanding slavery throughout the newly acquired territories in both the overall CSA and each Seceded States constitutions, weren't at least partly to blame for not just the start but the continuance of the war, from their blatant refusals to negotioate with the union?

Lincoln was certainly not a saint and i'm continually surprised with the way he is portrayed sometimes considering some of his actions like suspending Habeus Corpus, but his main goal was to reunite the union and he achieved it; both sides can be accused of butchery but it's ridiculous to lay it at the feet of just the Union or Lincoln.

The only people i've ever seen claim the US Civil War was Lincolns personal crusade against Slavery are either, people who have no interest in and/or don't know much about it so it pretty much becomes the default answer. Or lost causers as a strawman argument, as a way to make a point that noone is disagreeing with.

I'd say kill them all, but apparently anyone who answers the rallying call to standing up to mongrels that saw off innocent peoples heads and burn a human being alive are rapists and pillagers. (ok I quit)

but seriously...

KILL THEM ALL

Wipe them out and give no mercy. Tell whichever middle east country: "Hey, let them take over again, we end a lot more lives next time." Those that TRULY stand against them rise up and shut them down before civilized people from other nations have to sacrifice themselves for a greater cause. It's brutal, it's ugly, but it's the TRUTH.

LALOU, good post, there is nothing more you can do except exterminate them, you cannot let them grow. you kill a cancer cell before it kills you, why can't Israel do something to help stop them, they have all the weapons in the world.

the arab nations have to get together and wipe them out.

and, lalou, I guess we are going to help out in the Ukraine now also. what do you think of that situation?

As well as for the Truman-MacArthur-Eisenhower dispute I think A LOT can be said by reading "The Last Lion" about MacArthur. Growing up I was the BIGGEST MacArthur plan. After reading that biography I learned his father was the Commanding General AKA Field Marshall of the US and Philippine forces pre 1900 when they were a territory. Basically in WWI (I'll have to check the book) he went from 1LT to Colonel because of political connections in competition with Eisenhower.

I was taken aback by him when he took a patrol boat out of the Philippines to safety and left his LT Gen (3 Star) there to walk to Bataan death march with the rest of the troops, yet gave every person on the patrol boat that was on duty a Silver or Bronze Star for saving him (Made me think the guy was kind of full of himself, especially when I recall they never came under fire, only ducked a few enemy ships on the horizon, I'll check again)

I give it to him though, he had guts when he made the comment about "the dying soldier lying in the mud with an enemy bayonet through his belly" comment attests to his greatness as a general and leader of the country.

It had been war procedure since Vietnam. The US remained the world's super power and now HAS to follow the rules of war and Geneva convention or no one else will.

Israel will not go up against them by themselves because of the horrible relations instituted by Obama, (That happens when you bow to the shah of saudi, EIGHT TIMES!!! Mind you the other countries that yellow bellied P***Y bowed too) ((notice I didn't capitalize those ass clowns because they all deserve a sword to the midsection))

I'm not worried about the Ukraine that much Binnie, Russia barks like a Bulldog but bites like a Chihuahua, that's always been their game. Slap a few more embargoes and they revert back to vodka and depression.

I think Woodrow Wilson should be on everyone's worst president list. He got us into World War I. He had a private screening of the racist film "Birth of the Nation" held in the White House, then gave it public praise and reignited the KKK. He vetoed anything that gave the appearance of an anti-lynching bill, and he created Jim Crow in Washington DC., not to mention racially segregating the military. He was a big government progressive and a horrible racist.

Another president who should be mentioned is Andrew Jackson, the ultra-racist founder of the modern Democratic Party who was responsible for the Trail of Tears that uprooted thousands of Native Americans from the South to Oklahoma and Arkansas.

Pretty much every country in the world agrees that ISIS is a terrorist organization, but there is still a lack of condemnation for other terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. Moreover, both Sunni and Shi'a teach that conversion from Islam to another religion is apostasy and receives the death penalty. For the terrorism to end there has to be free choice in religious belief. It says in Al-Baqara 256 in the Quran that there must be no compulsion in religion. ISIS obviously ignores that verse, but it is not much of an improvement if there is, as most Sunni and Shi'a believe, that compulsion is good to prevent one from leaving Islam.

ISIS ignores a lot of things in the quran. For example calling someone a heathen or unbeliever is not up to humans and is the equivalent of being an unbeliever because it is up to god to decide who is a believer.

And people that support Isis take some things in the quran literally. Some people dont realize that the rules that were applicable 1400years ago arent logical or humane in this day and age.

Parents of American woman held by IS notified of her death

http://news.yahoo.com/parents-american-woman-held-notified-her-death-151102219.html

Do you know what is advertise right on this site right under this thread.

It is Muslima.com.

International Muslim matramonial site. What is that about are they all virgins the girls pictures on the site are pretty nice.

I heard that ISIS recently executed several imams who disagreed with it.

Yeah, Wilson re-election platform was keeping the country out of the war. Soon after he won, he sent the country to war due to the Zimmermann Telegram.

Lol, I love these sites where you find a date based on religion, ethnicity, age. Some of them just crack me up at how specific they are.

yes, faithful I fully agree on both of them. and the trail of tears is one of the most shameful events in U.S history. and no doubt Wilson was a horrible racist.and both need history to take another look at them, a revisionist history of both. thank you for bringing them to my attention.

we seem to never hold anyone then, and now, accountable for their actions, we truly need a revisionist history of all presidents.

Jackson is held more accountable to his actions, I mean like you said the Trail of Tears is one of the most shameful parts of U.S History.

Wilson is only known for WWI, Prohibition starting under him, allowed the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, and the failed attempt for the United States to join the League of Nations. Besides that not much is known about him. Honestly, I wonder how everything would have been if either Teddy Roosevelt or Taft won the election instead of Wilson in 1912.

I cant believe the talk has evolved into historical presidents being "the worst" when Henry Kissinger is still alive in the US and cant visit some countries for fear of being tried for war crimes, anyone read "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" by Christopher Hitchens? Kissinger is responsible for more deaths as Secretary of State and NS advisor than any US person in history!

Historical US leaders have been tacitly forgiven for war crimes, either through propaganda or just time, but you have a person here who is alive, guilty and has organised and controlled major atrocities across the world. Whats even more disgusting is some people think he's some sort of hero.... Take 5 and have a look

This is the same Christopher Hitchens who was a militant atheist and considered Mother Teresa a terrorist. Hitchens, to put it kindly, was full of crap.

Read the Mother Theresa book faithful, youll understand. He's also the guy who completely believed in the US and moved there, was granted citizenship and praised the US way of life till his dying breath..

I don't understand what the problem is with being a militant atheist? Militant obviously in terms of being outspoken against the horrific control of religions throughout the world and instead just believing in what you want and not imposing it on others...cant see whats wrong with that

Mother Theresa was a saint, one of the people that makes me proud of my heritage, and I'm not even religious... we really need more people like her, the whole world does.
I can't imagine what kind of crap he could have possibly written about her.

This has been a great shock here in Prescott, her home town. Tremendous outpouring of grief and support for her family.

When 19 firefighters died battling a wildfire not far from here in 2013, the people of this town raised $5 million for their families inside of a month.

good point. I totally agree, a very, very, evil human being, who should still be tried for war crimes. history will judge him as a warmonger.

Jackson is held more accountable to his actions, I mean like you said the Trail of Tears is one of the most shameful parts of U.S History.

Wilson is only known for WWI, Prohibition starting under him, allowed the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, and the failed attempt for the United States to join the League of Nations. Besides that not much is known about him. Honestly, I wonder how everything would have been if either Teddy Roosevelt or Taft won the election instead of Wilson in 1912. [/quote

I think teddy Roosevelt would have been a fine choice, he would not have entered that stupid war, and he would never have prohibited alcohol, which turned out to be the most stupid law every made in America. but with Wilson you had an imbecile.

Latest ISIS video shows beheading of 20 Coptic Christians in Egypt.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/15/middleeast/isis-video-beheadings-christians/


Obama won't say "radical Islam" but he's happy to talk about the Crusades from hundreds of years ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-s--crusades-...-172358986.html

ISIS is as close to a literal interpretation of the Q'uran as you can get. That needs to recognized.

Read the recent atlantic article. Very impressive.

ISIS plans to infiltrate and invade Italy via Lampedusa, Sicily. It's insane. The italian govt is preparing a defense force against it.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-securi...from-the-south/

Then Italy had better get its act together.

they [isis] need to be hit, and hit hard. I still haven't seen napalm being used, or white phosphours, if we hit them with those chemicals it could cripple them,

what are we waiting for?

A couple of days ago President Obama spoke at a summit addressing muslim extremism and he made the following comment:

“Here in America,” Obama stated, “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”


Is he rewriting history just to be conciliatory or what?

I cannot recall in my lifetime islam being woven in our society, and ive been around a while [im 72] what in the world is this guy talking about?

If ISIS is not dealt with and they are given time to set up cells in the US, UK etc, 9/11 type events will happen again.
On another note the UN is announcing it may name Syrian war criminals. OOHHHH I bet the ISIS guys are shaking in their boots at that announcement. UN = Clueless

can we all agree that the U.N. is just about useless!

From what I gather about the UN in regards to terrorists like ISIS is they sit around in comfortable offices, spending countless hours deciding to announce that yes in fact these guys are criminals and have committed numerous crimes.

I hope nobody is paying those dumb asses.

Have you seen the UN soldiers? With their blue helmets? They look like a joke.

For a guy who went to Columbia and Harvard he's pretty ignorant about American history, but it fits in with the far left's narrative that is out to dismiss, deny and appease Islamism while criticizing and condemning Christianity at every opportunity.

I have a distaste for people who appease Islam, no matter, president or not !!

I deal in countries that have muslem populations I knew a lot of them through soccer. I coached them and their kids I have not felt any hatred to me from them.

But why haven't we heard anything from the majority of them denouncing the terrorists?

When they attached the WTC on 9/11 I did not hear shit from them. They also showed some of the praising what happened.

I think deep down they like what going on with the terrorist. They blame us for our support of Israel. Do we still support Isreal under Obama regime?

Hey the liberals did not want us to go in afganistan but they had no problem with us going into Libya because that is what Obama wanted.

published in 2013....haven't read it but I've heard it referenced in a few radio interviews

Look I am not going to buy this or read it. If you read it can you give us a synopsis of what it said?

Foot,

I agree with you guys that are calling BS on Obama's comment about Islam and the fabric of the country but what some of the interviews alluded to was Muslims and Jews mentioned specifically when some of the founding fathers were discussing religious freedom in the colonies.

I mean it could be reaching even further back and talking about how the areas where Islam sprung up from and their cultural influences were responsible for taking Europe out of the "dark ages" and tracing some of the intellectual ideas about enlightenment that Jefferson and company studied to that.

Not sure, Foot.

The author speaks about the book


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5xb_8Kyd1s

That's how I feel. The Far Left (and especially White "secular" liberals) hated ALL RELIGION prior to 9/11. But since Muslims from that part of the world tend to be dark skinned, these same liberals all of a sudden get to cherry pick which religions should be silenced (Jews and Christians), and which should be given a soapbox (take a guess).

I agree with you pizza, and Faithful and Binnie.

The truth is the truth, however uncomfortable it may make people.

Christians can be openly mocked or legitimately criticized in America. I differ with your point about Jews though. Jews ,and now Muslims, surely can't be mocked and cannot be legitimately criticized for anything without accusations of prejudice.

Honestly, Gets, I think you and I tend to agree on a lot of things. And when we don't, it's easy enough to agree to disagree.

Interestingly there are a number of historians who believe that the so-called Dark Ages (term isn't really used anymore) were in fact CAUSED by the Muslims who invaded Europe in the 8th century and thereafter and who blocked off trade with China, India and other countries. The end of Europe's Middle Age seems to coincide to when Spain kicked out the Emirate of Granada.

But the Founding Fathers barely mention Islam at all, so if Obama was thinking that it shows his historical ignorance.

I mostly agree with you, but things are changing with the Jews. There's been a huge upsurge in left-wing antisemitism that coincides with Jewish support of Israel, which is an area where the Far Left and Islamists find common ground.

Thomas Jefferson had more than 6000 books in his library on a wide variety of subjects. He believed in liberty and freedom of conscience with regard to religious beliefs.

The irony here is that Jefferson was the first president to get into a war with Barbary pirates, who happened to be islamic. The pirates would attack US ships in the mediterranean, capture the crews and demand ransom or extortion money. This extortion was being paid every year and reached about 10 percent of the US national budget. When Jefferson became president he refused to pay and Tripoli declared war on the US in 1801.

Short documentary on the Barbary war:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM97XzQn9IQ#t=241

Good answer. Gonna keep my eye on you, Mr. Melon.


-----

Because Truman was too much of a P-wimp to go in there and let MacCarthur blow out those commie bastards!

One of the funniest film clips of alltime

That was some great comedy!

Makes me want to attempt a Triple Lindy!

This strange phenomena as present even before 9/11. At first glance secular liberals and Muslims - particularly the hard line, extremist sort - are as far apart as possible. And yet, we've seen secular liberals in both Western Europe and North America favor the Palestinians over Israel almost without exception. We have continued to see it after 9/11 even up to the present where we have Obama apparently more concerned about being an apologist for radical Islam than calling it what it is and dealing with it. In the bigger picture, it's not an Obama problem, per se. It's a liberal thinking problem. To be sure, on it's own secular liberals have no love for any religion, including Islam. But their loathing for all things Judeo-Christian, to which they've been much more exposed to down through the years, supersedes that and, if given a choice, they will usually defend Islam. Sort of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type thinking. It's a type of thinking that's based not only on a particular dislike for Judeo-Christianity, but also moral relativism. It's why you have Obama and other apologists attempting to bring up the Crusades from hundreds of years ago whenever the discussion of radical Islam arises.

ISIS just kidnapped 90 Syrian Christians. It will probably the largest mass beheading yet.

ive never heard of , nor have I ever seen a group that is asking for it like isis, they bother to hide nothing, every atrocity is in our face.

I have never in my life wanted anyone destroyed like I want this group dismantled, and all of them put to death.

however I have this eerie feeling that whomever is behind them [funding terrorist groups] is trying very, very, hard to get the U.S. involved with ground troops.

why? is it out of ignorance on their part, or is it part of their strategy to get us involved heavily over there with ground troops while they strike elsewhere?

Well then the Hell with ground troops. For the first time in my life, I completely advocate the use of nuclear force. And if a million or so innocents have to die to blast these sub-human pieces of human garbage back into the stone age, then so be it.

There was a time where that was referred to as collateral damage. And not only was it expected, it was accepted. And fuck helping them rebuild like we did after Hiroshima, or with those ridiculous food packages that we drop off now after we smart bomb these scumbags. Let Darwinism run its course and let's see these ragheads try to rebuild during a nuclear winter.

We either nuke them into extinction or we learn to mind our own fucking business. There's no middle ground. Personally, I'm rooting for the former rather than the latter. But we all know that's not gonna happen with Barack Hussein still living it up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Because God forbid we should deal with fanatical Muslim extremism when there are dinner parties to be thrown for movie star liberal benefactors like Common and Affleck (and for the race baiters, please take notice that I used a White example and a Black example of guys who have entirely too much to fucking say about American policy).

And I want to go on record for applauding Obama for calling Kanye West an asshole when he acts like an asshole (which is pretty much every waking moment he has).

And I'm sorry for getting sidetracked with the Hollywood rant. But the Oscars are still on my mind, and it's not like Hollywood and Far Left American politics are mutually exclusive. It makes me wonder if they'd feel a little differently if those planes were aimed at Paramount Studios and the Santa Monica Freeway instead of the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. Probably not. Those assholes are too far gone.

Pizzaboy's opinions are always so extreme one way or the other. Kind of intimidating. While I agree ISIS are a bunch of sick son of a f*cks (out for themselves) I still think spending a significant amount of funds overseas is not economically beneficial, unless the top 5 percent of the money makers 250,000K and above per year start paying A LOT more taxes. I still think stay away from the middle east and let them burn themselves out. More high tech security in the United States: satellites, CIA agents whatever technologies they have these days. More hightech security at the border states/airports. I still think Pakistan/Aghanistan are still pretty extreme in their Islamic Views and may still fund some terroristic activity, not ALL Pakistani's and Afghani's individually but I'm sure they are some pretty extreme groups within those countries... Jordan / Lebanon are a bit more liberal don't really imagine there being a strong terrorist organizations in those countries although I don't really follow this stuff. The US doesn't stand a chance against Saudi Arabia and all their oil money and unless I'm wrong they are ally's anyhow, so why f*ck with an ally?? ISIS should be kept from entering the United States. Hopefully other Islamic states protect themselves, but what is the west going to do??? Pay to send a bunch of troops overseas and have them blow themselves up to me sounds violent and self destructive. who knows maybe the United States will get lucky and the ISIS members will piss of the Saudi's enough and they can fund the elimination of this terrorist group. Anyway's what did you all eat for dinner??

we can go in with Apache helicopters at night and kill them all. They would not even hear the fire until they get hit with explosive rounds.

Some one sent me a video of it. They would not have a chance. Just can't worry about killing non fighters. Drop notes tell then stay in your houses and don't come out or your a target.

Not really.


Thank you.

Ha We are going in there with a fn F-22 Raptor. Only costs $2.14 million but hell it's worth every cent if you ask me to bomb those friggin scumshits

The world knows under this president we are pussies. No one thinks twice about doing anything because they know we won't do anything.

That is why puttin thinks he can do anything no one with balls to stop him.

Every one here outside of NYC thinks they are not in danger of an attack.

That's why, and God forbid it happens, maybe if a plane hit the Golden Gate Bridge or a dorm at Berkeley, or if ISIS showed up at a gay pride parade and started beheading (no pun intended) a bunch of gay guys, people's views would change.

Modern Day Liberalism is a disease. It's no longer about wanting equal rights. It's about spreading your own self-hate and hoping to take half the planet with you. I seriously believe that postmodern liberals are all suffering from some sort of suicidal mental problem. It has nothing to do with politics anymore.

Quick cure: Off yourself. But don't take anyone with you.

Because with all the instability in their countries wtf do you want them to say?? If they are here and they are actual citizens, not FOBS trying to marry their way into the country somehow... The Islamic republic took their land/money as well... plus they are probably neutral, like stuck between two worlds you go and take a stand here then somehow get sent back then what??? you'd be like an outcast I'm thinking... you want to know what I thought during 911 "f*ck just when things are starting to settle down there is another f*cking attack/war it's depressing

as far as "modern day liberalism", I don't consider myself a liberal, independent yes, maybe moderate and I am not a big fan of the whole gay pride either as I am straight I think it's just another fad or a way for a group of people to go around saying they are being persecuted somehow and try and get some type of sympathy. As far as Israel, I am a Christian (went to both Catholic and Christian churches with my friends growing up, and have no real opinion on the happenings of Israel as I never even met a Jewish person till I was like 24 years old and the girls I know are cool except I guess you have to have a lot of money to be part of the temple is what they told me unless they were just joking around




sounds good in theory but then again, like you I always think of the non fundamentalist types, the sickest part of the whole fundamentalist theory of ANY religion is the fundamentalist hide amongst the common people, for example Bin Lauden, did you ever see him do a suicide bomb? no, he hid amongst the common people and used a women as a human shield when they finally did execute him. I will say I am not comfortable going to a Mausque but I'm not going to hate Middle Eastern people as a whole there are different religions in all the countries. As far as nuclear war the chemicals will reach this country at some point as well. And you see the troops coming back from war prostate cancer, post traumatic stress, depression, shell shock all this stuff is ugly.

PB: I don't think a nuclear attack is where we want to go because then we'd be killing too many of the people we're trying to save. But we need to do a hell of a lot more than what we're doing now. I'm sure the military has better solutions, but I'm also sure that it's hamstrung by Obama and his administration of fools.

PL: Not economically beneficial until they start mounting attacks here on a large scale. We've already seen lone-wolf radical Muslims who follow ISIS commit acts of terrorism here (which Obama calls "work place violence"), but imagine when things get serious. Obama has underestimated them every time. He called them the "JV team" then said they're only limited to Syria and Iraq. We now know they're in Libya too and in Afghanistan, plus other groups like Boku Haram has pledged allegiance to them. They're even in the Philippines. Plus, with this open borders program that Obama is doing, what is to prevent them from entering that way? Border Patrol agents already found a Muslim prayer mat left at the border. This group is a danger to the world and if we don't take them seriously then we'd better start learning Arabic and quit eating pork.

Even if you did nuke that part of the world, youd create a million more martyrs around the world and increase the attacks at home. Conversley, liberalism doesnt seem to be to effective either...

Its such a difficult situation and any answer has its own set of issues, although the best in my opinion is those involved directly should shoulder the full burden.

Those of islamic faith, countries and leaders included, MUST denounce with outrage every single act of violence (which they dont with any enthusiasm) and do much, much more to stop and prevent it. THEY should be attacking isis at home, THEY should be marching in protest everywhere, THEY should be spending more on intelligence to prevent terrorism, THEY should accept responsibility for the actions of others following their faith. If not, severe sanctions or whatever should be applied.

Unfortunately, the USA and effectively, most of the world is in bed with rich, middle eastern countries and until the bullshit is cut through in these relationships and they are examined seriously and used for good, we'll get nowhere. It boils down to human greed at the end of the day.

External intervention is rarely effective in any situation, and the problem with Islamic extremism is no different.

Those of islamic faith, countries and leaders included, MUST denounce with outrage every single act of violence (which they dont with any enthusiasm) and do much, much more to stop and prevent it. THEY should be attacking isis at home, THEY should be marching in protest everywhere, THEY should be spending more on intelligence to prevent terrorism, THEY should accept responsibility for the actions of others following their faith. If not, severe sanctions or whatever should be applied.

Agreed with everything you said here. Except the fact that Religion as a whole is to blame, i doubt you or anyone else would like to be linked to Militant Atheismm; just as much as a private Christian would like to be linked to Religious (Islam or anything else) extremists.

It's an intellectual fallacy to think that the average Atheist is anymore morally sound than the average Religious person or vice-versa. Something you keep saying you know, before resorting to insults and mockery of peoples beliefs. Thankfully most people know the Atheists here, and know that they respect everyones belief.

I think you've misunderstood (and misquoted) me Camarel. I didn't say religion as a whole was to blame, the extremists are? Not sure which of the 5 paragraphs you've misunderstood.

You would surely agree that people of an Islamic faith could perhaps do more, than as is currently being done, to tackle isis etc and the extremist views they hold? If ANY person of ANY faith or belief witnessed what we are witnessing these days in the name of their specific religion/belief, they SPECIFICALLY would have a moral obligation to denounce it and fight it at every opportunity. Yes others could, but it doesn't hold the same weight. Im not convinced that is the case with Islam at the moment. You might think its actions are generally sufficient, and that would be where we disagree.

Ive also never once said the average atheist is more morally sound than any religious person, however (as I have said time and again) religion preaches IT is and threatens the morally inept will be punished - for ever. All without any evidence, which is one of my grievances. Again, your getting confused for some reason. People can have sound morals whatever their belief, and religious people are no better than anyone else, at all, ever, period. Not sure how clear I have to be before you get what Im saying....

In any case, Ive answered the points you raised and am reluctant to go down the rabbit hole of atheism/religion again, it'll just go round and round!

They probably would still place the blame elsewhere

No argument there. None at all .

ISIS in Brooklyn-

http://nypost.com/2015/02/25/3-nyc-planning-to-join-isis-taken-into-custody-in-fbi-raid/

There are a lot of Muslem strong holds in Brooklyn. But none near me that I know of.

lmao! hope you aren't looking at pornographic images and falling for false prophets... virgins... so what... you rick enough to marry them all and treat them equally? I guess ignorance is bliss for some people....

LOLL!!!! The idea of not eating pork logically speaking came from ancient times where they didn't cook the meat enough and it made people sick... The Muslims weren't the only religion who believed that, unless I'm mistaken the Jews felt pork wasn't "kosher" as well... it's all a matter of preference in this country, we can thank God/Jesus for that...

Be fair a lot of the highest paid profession's doctors/engineers/professors came from a middle eastern background and have PHD's in subjects such as math and science... if you can't give them any credit then you are being foolish...

Has nothing to do with people of middle eastern background. Steve Jobs biological father was Syrian. It's the fake founding of America narrative liberals try to create.

And you're right on the verge of mocking God/Jesus, when there are plenty of faithful on this board. So I'm an extremist, but it's okay for you to mock the faithful?

And you think I'm intimidating on a fucking message board? PhillyLoves. The Bronx doesn't.

Scratch that, and let me shut up. I have some personal family stuff going on right now, and I just don't have the patience right now for the double standard that's afforded to secular liberals who can mock my faith, yet no one makes a peep when I get called an extremist.

Have a nice night. And I mean that. But let's just put this one to sleep.

Phillyloves take the advice. Nobody wants to know what you are thinking. Leave it alone.

Can I say AMEN to that?

BTW, phillyloves, what I wrote about pork was called sarcasm. I'll remember to be more literal should I respond to any more of your posts.

Done : )
Alfonso's girl I'm sorry you were shot in the head with a be be gun for dating multiple guys and had to go to a street guy instead of calling the police and filing an actual police report and Pizzaboy I'm sorry an non Italian tried to pose as an Italian THEN tried to extort you and threaten your wife and kids Faithful1, you need to quit while your ahead everytime you open your mouth you sound even more stupid : )

If that was sarcasm, it needs a lot of work. If that was showing us how you can be a total asshole, you've succeeded.

LOLL!!!! The idea of not eating pork logically speaking came from ancient times where they didn't cook the meat enough and it made people sick... The Muslims weren't the only religion who believed that, unless I'm mistaken the Jews felt pork wasn't "kosher" as well... it's all a matter of preference in this country, we can thank God/Jesus for that... [/quote]

Jews and Muslims have a lot in common.

Both my oldest sons wives ex and current were so called Muslems. Both dig Christmas my newest Grand daughter is being raised catholic. My oldest grand daughter from his ex is a muslem in name only.

She ate plenty of macaroni pie recently it has ham in it. His current wife it's what we eat.

You had the chance to show us how you can act like a man and just keep your thoughts to yourself. I'm very disappointed you went this route. Enough. No more personal attacks on ppl. Leave it alone.

Exactly. Hope he wises up. There's no need for that type of behavior on these threads.

First of all, no one dared threaten me or tried to extort my wife or children. That you've only been here for four months and 35 posts, yet was able to twist that story around, tells me that you've paid too much attention to me for this to be your first time at this rodeo. You're clearly a lonely troll who's been here before. But something tells me that you're not long for this place. Until you change your ip again anyway. Have a nice night.

first of all I am not a man I am a woman and as an educated women I find pizzaboy's comment's on liberalism a complete step back in women's rights... like I said I am truly sorry you got shot in the head with a bebe gun and I meant that but Pizzaboy you have ABSOLUTLEY NO RIGHT whatsoever to OUT people's real names when you really have NO CLUE who is who... that makes YOU a stalker and a creep and a person who seems to have a vendetta against ANYBODY who doesn't kiss your feet and praise YOUR religion and the truth is I don't give a rat's ass if I get kicked off this board as pizzaboy's comment's and attitude's make me SICK now all of you CYBER muscle men and women please #uck off already... I am not a complete asshole but I'm certainly not going to let a bunch of nobodies mock a whole faith over the stupidity of a couple extremists. I doubt you would talk so freely face to face or at work IF you even have a job.

Well, since you have no qualms about being thrown out of here you won't mind this exit. It's pretty clear to me you are here with the sole purpose of trolling. We don't need, or want, that crap here.

In Islam we see Jesus and Moses as prophets, and a lot of other things are similarly like Judaism and Christianity.

Being Muslim doesn't mean we all follow the rules and enforce them. Im muslim and I drink alcohol and I have done other things that aren't allowed. Like Jews and Christians, muslims also make mistakes and tend to live a life were religion doesn't impact every aspect of our lifes.

I have to disagree with some points. First of all the Dark Ages weren't caused by a single factor. While Islamic conquest might have influenced European history at the time Islamic rulers didn't destroy European civilizations after conquering them. At that time Islam wasn't as bad as it is now. Minorities were granted a lot of freedom under Islamic rule. And Islam was until the invasion of the Turks and Mongols the centre of science during that time which was called the Dark Ages of Europe.

The fracturing of Europe into smaller states after the fall of the Roman Empire created much more instability in all of Europe than the Muslims who got as far as Spain. I think Feudalism and the Pope's intervention with the affairs of Christian countries halted any progress for Europe. Look at all the wars that tore Europe apart during the Dark Ages I don't think Muslims were involved. The only stable part of Europe was the east with Hungary, Poland and Russian states, but they fell under the mongols whom actually did massacre and destroy anything on their way.

And with the trade being blocked was more of a political thing done by the Turks. After Constantinople(1453) fell to the Turks they started taxing a lot of the trade and making it impossible for Europeans to benefit from the east. That's also why Columbus tried to find for an easier route to the East Indies.
And the time when Europe's middle ages ended hadn't anything to do with the Emirate of Granada, Which was a small piece of the south of Spain in that time. It was more thanks to the European enlightenment/Renaissance that started of in Italy and spread to the rest of Europe.

Didn't say that the so-called Dark Ages were caused by a single factor, but there was a primary factor and that was the jihadist invasions known as the Islamic conquests. I suggest you look over these works since they go into more detail:

http://www.amazon.com/Mohammed-Charlemag...1742&sr=1-8

http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Warriors-Demise-Classical-Civilization/dp/0980994896

You can also read this lengthy article: http://uhrao.blogspot.com/2013/02/islam-caused-dark-ages.html

As for the treatment of minorities, are you familiar with treatment of dhimmis under Islam? You can examine these texts for more: http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Dhimmitude-Where-Civilizations-Collide/dp/1611472369. The treatment of minorities under Islam was always in flux depending on the location and who was in charge. Jews may have been treated better than the Christian and pagan populations of Europe, but there were intermittent persecutions against them too, just as there were persecutions against Christians.

As for trade, read what happened to the papyrus supply being cut down and how it affected literacy in Europe. This was noted by historian Henri Pirenne in the 1930s.

As for 1453 and later, that is hundreds of years after the events I'm discussing, so it's not relevant here.

Here is the Islamic State destroying ancient statutes from the Assyrian Empire of the Bible. This comes after they burned about 8000 rare books and documents from the public library in Mosul.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31647484

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/isis-burns-8000-rare-books-030900856.html

Let's not forget their most recent atrocity of murdering 15 Syrian Christians and beheading a woman:

http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/...1f0bed70ff.html

if isis is behind that ebola shit then napalm their whole network

including the negros

Islamists hack to death a Bangladeshi blogger who was a secular humanist. His wife was also hacked but so far has survived.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla...adesh#.ka1oakBx

http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2015/02/26/assailants-hack-to-death-writer-avijit-roy-wife-injured

Question for the Americans, how would a Republican President have handled ISIS? For instance if Romney had got in? Its clear that air strikes is part of destroying ISIS but not enough. We need a coalition of ground troops. I think Iraq could be done quite quickly, and generally this time we would have support of the Iraqi public. However Syria is a minefield. Would we also be fighting Jabhat Al-Nusra and other Islamist rebels? Would Assad's troops engage us?

I think Romney would have been more forceful in getting the 2011 status of forces agreement. Don't know how or if he would have succeeded, but he said in the debates that he would have kept more troops that what Obama offered, maybe around 30K. Here is National Review's take: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/380508/no-us-troops-didnt-have-leave-iraq-patrick-brennan.

We know that ISIS started invading Iraq shortly after the American troops left, so they were clearly a deterrent.

Regarding Syria, both Obama and Romney were for arming the rebels, but I think it would have been better to have turned Assad into an ally. That's not a popular position, but there's a lot more religious freedom under Assad than under ISIS. Assad's army was well-organized, but turned out to be no match for ISIS plus the rebels. Too thinned out, plus it seems that ISIS is more highly motivated and more sociopathic in its tactics since it is willing to murder anyone. Even Assad's army wouldn't go that far, plus his army includes Christians from the large Assyrian population. So that's my take on it.

what is the American public's view on handling ISIS? I agree with MCain on this, he is all for military action.

Wow I didn't know about the fact that Islam cut of trade with the west, I wasnt familiar with this thanks for showing it.
But I highly doubt that was as big of a problem as the other bigger problems.
Look at the fall of the Western Roman empire and the barbarians that invaded the north of Europe and destroyed any traces of civilization I think that setback Europe worse than the end of trade with the Mediterranean.
Then look at what Christianity did to Europe. I think that the Church hindered Western development the most. They were intervening with the affairs of most European rulers and they caused a lot of in fighting between the Europeans.
The west lost most of its technological advances by the rise of barbarians. And then when you look at science I think the Arabs at the time did very good by preserving Roman and Greek technology that was lost with these invasions, and they even made significant improvements themselves.

I know about the Dhimmi's and I actually taught it was a good thing, If you look at the conditions of that time many people were slaughtered in the rest of the world, or forced to convert to a different religion. The Jizra and the use of Dhimmi's prevented any of this. And I agree that ofcourse the treatment of minorities differed from leader to leader, but with the standards of that time I think it was better than for example the Spanish inquisition or other ways of dealing with religious minorities(not implying Muslims were saints or anything).

And with the info you showed me I can agree with you that Islam was a factor hindering the development of Europe in that time.

I don't know if anyone has seen this but kind of interesting



Berkeley students don't have an issue with ISIS or Hamas.
They seem to be disgusted with the thought Israel

Wtf

Being a dhimmi was like being under Jim Crow, but worse in many ways, and not too many people defend Jim Crow laws. Churches and synagogues could not be built or rebuilt if damaged, Jews and Christians could not testify in court against a Muslim, a Muslim man could marry a Jewish or Christian girl and force her to convert and raise their children Muslim, but a Jewish or Christian man could not marry a Muslim female. Jews and Christians were pressured to convert to Islam, but if a Muslim converted he or she could be put to death for apostasy. Jews and Christians often lived in their own communities, which were sometimes raided and pillaged, and the victims could do nothing but complain. And of course there were the persecutions. Doesn't sound too good to me.

Cutting off the trade in papyrus (grown in Egypt) meant an increase in illiteracy in Europe. There was a decrease in metals and spices. Spices were used to preserve food, so more food spoiled and more people went hungry.

As for the barbarians, while some of them were destructive (the Huns, the Vikings, the Vandals and the Goths), they all ended up merging with the other settled peoples and adopted the Latin language. It was also Catholic monks that preserved ancient literature and the university system was created by the Catholic Church, which promoted education, including theology, philosophy and science.

The Spanish Inquisition did not cover all of Europe (only Spain and its colonies, including Latin America) and did not prevent it from developing. It did result in the confiscation of property and the deaths of about 3000-5000 people. That is far less than the number of people killed by Muslims during the same time period. Muslim pirates raided the coastlines of Italy, Spain, France, England and even Iceland for slaves, which often resulted a massive death toll. Muslims also started the East African slave trade around the year 800 which resulted in the deaths of an estimated 30 million Africans. Female slaves often became concubines and their babies were killed, and males were castrated (and this was without anesthesia, and many did not survive this). This is why there are not black communities in places like Iraq and Turkey, etc, since black Africans were prevented from reproducing.

Sorry, but no... you can't play the "X religion has caused more damage to the world than Y religion" game. Islam caused the Dark Ages now too? Did it also cause the inquisitions and burn scientists at the stake?
Yes, Islam did have a negative impact throughout the Middle Ages and it might have been one of the causes of the Dark Ages, but it wasn't the main reason.
Many religions have caused A LOT of damage throughout history, and so have secular regimes like communism and fascism.
I'm saying this as a Christian, even though I don't really practice the rites. I know Islam isn't really popular on these boards (or maybe even the world) nowadays with everything going on with the ISIS, but COME ON, there's a limit to how much you can bash a religion and defend another.

I realize the General Boards is mostly a place where members with similar views come to vent and let off some steam, while agreeing with each other and those who don't are sometimes ganged up on or chased off the (General) boards. I accept it, it's the way it works here so whatever, but if I can be brutally honest, I must say I've also read some of the most ridiculous and extremist opinions in here that I've ever heard in my life, but as I said, I usually take them with a grain of salt because I think they're mostly venting and not 100% serious. (I'm not even talking about the theory you posted Faithful, if anything that might be plausible.)

Anyway my only suggestion to the members here is to be a little more open-minded in debates and trying to see things from different perspectives. However, I agree that with topics like politics and religion it's useless debating since nobody will change their mind, which is why I decided not to post anymore on these boards in such topics (and I don't think I'm the only one) And I know there's also trolls who just enjoy getting a reaction out of someone, but still I think it's important to be a little more friendly and respectful, regardless of somebody's views.
Sorry for the rant, just wanted to get this off my chest as I've seen a lot of hate on this board and it's not pretty.

I've posted that ad nauseam for the past nine years. You've been here for nine months . And that's not sarcasm because you know I like you.


You said that at least two weeks ago. Just saying.


Generally the person who creates the thread, then sits back and gleefully watches it mushroom (not in this case, though, NickyScarfo is a great kid and I vouch for him personally).


It's not going away. The best thing you can do is learn to stop clicking on topics that you KNOW are going to bother you. I do it in the OC section all day long.

I'm not out to bash any religion and there's no reason for you to take my posts that way. This is coming from several historians, not from me. The Islamic conquests had an impact. Not the only impact, but a major impact. I don't see why that's hard to accept. Also don't see the need for the sarcastic responses about the Inquisition, etc. Really don't understand why you're so offended.

Thanks PB! Iv'e enjoyed your posts since I came here in 2011 !

PB, I just wanted to say it like I see it. I've been messaged by different people, many of them pretty solid guys in here who refrain from posting their opinion on this board because they'd be ostracized and alienated, so I wasn't only speaking for myself there. Even those who do engage, they rarely put much effort into the debate because they know they're outnumbered so it's useless.

I'm pretty sure they would be more than able to hold their own in the debates here, but they choose not to, and I don't blame them. As soon as somebody has a different opinion from the rest of the group, things get pretty heated, even when it's not about any hot topic like religion or politics.
Anyway, you're right buddy... bitching about it won't solve a thing so it's better to just leave it be. I'd PM you more details but you disabled it and I don't feel this warrants an email, especially with all that's going on in your life right now.

Faithful, I assure you I'm not offended and I didn't mean to snap at you personally, I think you're one of the greatest posters in the OC forum, it's just that after a while the same old crap that goes on here gets boring. I love these boards and I don't think an aggressive climate is what the admins were hoping for when they created it.
I know the theory you're talking about, it comes form a 1930's book "Mohammed et Charlemagne." It does make some good points but I don't believe it was ever fully accepted among the historians. Regardless, as I said above I'd rather not continue the debate here.

I think you got the Dhimmi and Jizya system wrong. First of all churches and synagogues were allowed to be built and repaired but only if there was an okay from the government.
It is true that Jews and Christians couldn't testify against a Mulsim. But they were allowed to have their own legal systems and they were allowed to practice their religion as long as they didn't try to convert a muslim. From what I know Minority religions were treated pretty good compared to the west in Islamic countries, and yes Islamic countries did have their flaws and bad sides. But look at when the Jews were persecuted in Europe, they were accepted in the Muslim world. I don't think that I can convince you that Islamic tolerance was a good thing during that time, but if you have the time for it I would like to ask you to look at the other side of criticizing Islam and maybe investigate the tolerant side of it?

And btw the time during the barbary piracy was also the time when the colonisation of America started and I dont think that ended well for the Native Americans. Also look at the treatment of Africa and Asia during the time of imperialism. I can only conclude that both Christian and Islamic rulers harmed the world in different ways. This discussion is starting to become more like a ''your religion was worse than mine'' discussion.

OK fellas, and ladies, I'm the one who brought up the middle ages, the renaissance and Islam. I was reaching for a possible explanation about the "Islam is part of the fabric of the country" line. That line used by the president is 100% BS and it was rightfully called out. Neither Obama nor his staff are idiots,they know the statement is inaccurate, so this was done for some kind of political effect.

They know the climate in America now so they absolutely know that objective people from both sides are going to write that what he said was a lie. They know that certain factions are going to lie and agree with him and that other factions will destroy him for it and add unrelated jabs in doing so.
I think the White House is trying to bait a potential Rep. nominee for 2016 in putting his/her foot in mouth in a way that will come back and haunt them.

Now, back to historical atrocities.This country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution in Europe.Sometimes we may not think of certain things as "Christian" atrocities or terrorism in the same way we see "Muslim" atrocities but if you take a closer look and you don't have a dog in the fight..you can see the similarities.

Now today in 2015..what these Muslim terrorists are doing to innocent people is evil..whether it's kidnapping girls in Nigeria or beheading neutral journalists. This is not the Cold War era anymore and the US cannot be the world's police and put out every fire. I'm gonna step back and read a lot more about what's going on because I get the feeling that we are being manipulated again.

I agree Getts; we need to step back just as Emily Latella did in her editorial on SNL:

What's all this talk about destroying ices and who is this West guy that wants to do that. I like ices, especially Italian ices. There's banana ices, cherry ices, lemon ices, lime ices. I like them all. Why would anyone want to destroy them?

I agree that Obama and his staff aren't idiots, but the words reflect his own personal beliefs. We have to consider his influences and his education. His father and stepfather were both Muslims, he attended a Muslim school in Indonesia and he was identified at that time as a Muslim. His mother and his maternal grandparents were political on the Far Left and he came under influence of a Communist named Frank Marshall Davis. After high school he moved to Southern California and attended Occidental College then transferred to Columbia in New York. He never released his transcripts so we don't know what he studied, except it has been revealed that he studied under Edward Said, an anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian professor of comparative literature, the author of "Orientalism," and a member of the governing body over the PLO. After Columbia he attended Harvard Law and graduated with a law degree then went to Chicago and became a community organizer. While in Chicago he taught at the University of Chicago.

Obama started attending Trinity United Methodist Church in 1987 and became a member there in 1992. Pastor Jeremiah Wright did not teach traditional Methodist theology but the Black Liberation Theology of Marxist theologian James Cone. Obama said he became a Christian as an adult, but did not specify when that was, but it's safe to assume that his version of Christianity probably was similar to Wright's. Pastor Wright married Barack and Michelle Robinson. Obama continued to attend Trinity until he ran for President in 2008.

In the 1990s he was connected with Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dorhn. Both were former leaders of the radical domestic terrorist group The Weather Underground and call themselves communists "with a little c". While leading the WU the group planted numerous bombs across the country. Dohrn is believed by the FBI and the San Francisco police of planting a bomb that killed a police officer. She was placed on the FBI's Most Wanted list in 1973 and was a fugitive until 1980. Her father got her a job with a law firm (although she did not have a law degree at the time), and both Ayers and Dorhn ended up teaching at the university level after completing their degrees. Ayers also became an adviser to Mayor Richard Daley. Ayers and Obama worked together on an Annenberg education project in 1995 that lost several million dollars, and Ayers hosted a coffee "meet and great" for Obama at his home when Obama ran for the state senate in 1995. Ayers said he didn't know who Obama was at the time and said they were only associates while others said they were friends until the early 2000s. In an interview with the Daily Beast, Ayers said they were friendly. They were also connected through a political party called the New Party.

In 2008 it came out that Obama's sponsor to Harvard Law was Khalid al-Mansour an antisemitic and anti-white Muslim attorney and close adviser to a Saudi prince and was involved with funding schools that taught Wahhabi theology around the world. He was born Don Warden and helped start the Black Panthers, but left the group after it began connecting with white radical groups.

So Obama had a lot of positive experiences and received a lot of influence from Muslims and the Palestinian cause. It explains his adversarial relationship to Netenyahu and his willingness to make a nuclear deal with Iran. When Obama said that "Islam is part of the fabric of the country" he may have meant in the present and not at the founding. So I don't think this is some sort of political bait, but his beliefs, his ideology.

Before this country was founded there were some groups escaping religions persecution: the Separatists (Pilgrims), the Puritans, the Quakers, and in the French southeast, the Huguenots (French Calvinists). They were all Protestant groups and did little persecution themselves, aside from the Salem Witch Trials. Most of the European persecution was committed by the Roman Catholic Church and Catholic rulers. In France in 1572 there was a genocide committed against Huguenots, and they were responsible for the Inquisition. Mary I of England persecuted Protestants and many went into exile during her reign. However, none of the examples of Catholic persecution compares to the number of murders committed by extremist Muslim groups over the past twenty years.

My concern, and I'm only speaking for myself, is that the extremist Muslim groups are succeeding. If left unchecked it could very well take over much of north and central Africa and the entire Middle East. There may be a time when Iran will have to reconsider its hatred toward Israel because it is the most powerful enemy of ISIS. Jordan is relatively weak, and Egypt is still in turmoil despite the fact that the current government is making all the right moves. I can also see ISIS, if it's around long enough, trying to take over France and Italy. ISIS and its extremist allies are trying to lead us into World War III.

With this in mind we can ask ourselves, if it would have been better to have taken out Hitler early when he invaded Alsace-Lorraine, wouldn't also be better to take out ISIS before it takes over much more of the world? To do that, the USA may have to get involved much more so than it is now.

@F

This is the recent statement

"Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding. Generations of Muslim immigrants came here and went to work as farmers and merchants and factory workers, helped to lay railroads and build up America. The first Islamic center in New York City was founded in the 1890s. America’s first mosque [founded in 1929] — this was an interesting fact — was in North Dakota."

the bolded part is wrong..and i have some audiobooks to listen through because i think he may be wrong about the date of the first mosque. think earlier mosques might have been constructed in jersey or philly by noble drew ali.

They have similarities in regards to how they repress knowledge and atrocities but as enemies Hitler and the Nazis are a different than ISIS. ISIS has factions all over the world so fighting a singular enemy will be difficult.

Long road ahead of us and unfortunately after taking out ISIS we will still have Boko Haram, al-Qaeda and Hamas

That's why I said the fight has to be against Islamic extremism, and ISIS is the dominant group. As for the Nazis, we (the Americans) had to fight them in North Africa before we took them on in Europe, so they were pretty spread out too.

Yes, Ali opened the Canaanite Temple in Newark in 1913, but it wasn't true Islam, more of an amalgamation of many beliefs. The first orthodox Muslim mosque was in North Dakota in 1929 (as you wrote), founded by Lebanese immigrants.

faithful 1 why didn't we know all about Obama when he ran his presidential race? I had no idea he had associates like the ones mentioned in your post.

I had no idea he was that close to the muslim faith, however recent events confirm your post as being true, and factful. why must we finds most things about a president when they already have the reins of power.

the more I read your post, the more I feel I have been misled, and lied to by this president. and you are true on about stopping isis now.

why don't we ever learn from history?

Don't see where I said that you didn't say Islamic extremist. I said we had a long road ahead of us with all the separate groups we have to destroy.



No doubt but Nazi were a different enemy, different type of warfare.

Thanks...just listened to a chapter about the history of Islam and Africans in the Americas practicing Islam in Manning Marable's book about Malcolm X.That's the best part of the book, actually but it glosses over the Arab slave trade..and makes unsubstantiated claims about other things.
Yes,what Ali practiced was not orthodox Islam.

I think that if immigration patterns of Middle Eastern people are traced...there would have to be a record of a building used as a mosque before 1929 though (Obama said it and I just wrote the quote).

If you had a group of 10 or more immigrants from a country where Islam was the main religion, within a year they would be using some standing structure as a mosque...and a year after that an actual mosque would be built or building purchased to be used as mosque.

I'm certain that there existed Roman Catholic churches here before the large wave of Irish immigrants, but surely many more sprung up immediately after that.

1929 sounds too late.

Then we agree



No doubt but Nazi were a different enemy, different type of warfare. [/quote]

Yes, but they're the closest analogy. In fact, the early Muslim Brotherhood and the Mufti of Jerusalem both worked with the Nazis to exterminate Jews.

Found a reference that says that the first mosque was in Brooklyn in 1920. Muslim immigration didn't really start until c1878 with a group of Syrians and Lebanese -- the people who eventually started the mosque in North Dakota. Before that, with few exceptions, the only Muslims in America were captured slaves. It is estimated that about 10-15% of African slaves were Muslims, but once enslaved they were forced to stop practicing and most converted.

The book I cited is a very good book on the history of Islam in America: https://books.google.com/books?id=xKsLCx...que&f=false

I've read Marable before and may have one of his book somewhere, but he's a bit too Marxist for my tastes.

thanks

In Obama's statement, his writer crafted the line about North Dakota to be the chaser.The same way that you might chase a shot with fruit juice. Saying North Dakota, doesn't evoke the same perceptions as saying New York so saying that the first mosque was in ND in 1929..ND...middle america.is supposed to bolster the lie about Islam being sewn into the fabric of America.

I was aware of the % of enslaved Africans who were said to be Moslems. The European slave trade lasted so long that they had it down to a science and slavers specifically requested Africans from specific regions for specific types of labor.Historians are able to guess the percentage based on region.Marable's book puts the number at 8 to 9%

I dismissed that as what Obama could have been talking about because that would make no sense. Christian slavers forced Africans to convert and/or give up their religious practices.

Isis took control of Ramadi which is about 79 miles from Baghdad

[Edit]
New says ISIS is claiming they have taken control

how many times have we been told by our military that the Iraqi army is going to take care of the fighting from now on.

they ran away again. when are we going to understand that the Iraqi army can not do the job.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/p...518-gh4f3q.html

Not exactly related to ISIS but related to Islam and the Middle East and the Christian vs. Islam thing

http://madworldnews.com/bible-name-god-antichrist/

interesting link, the middle east is where all of the armies will gather in the last days. it could be closer than we think.

thank you for the link.

Lions of Rojava if anyone is interested look them up. I have a buddy that just signed up. You will be a mercenary but earning six figures and by that I don't mean 100,000. There are no rules of war to follow since no country has declared war. So the basic principle is find the cells and kill them however you can.

This is one of the leaders they killed. Contrary to popular belief it was not our Special Forces it was the mercenaries that got him. Obama was trying to take credit but the story got out.

Sounds kind of like Blackwater

One thing I've notice is, those that attempt to bring up some kind of moral relativism between Christianity and Islam are often those who are apologists in some way for radical Islam. And even if certain parallels can be made, in terms of the bad episodes of each religion, there's something to be said for the fact that those people typically have to go back hundreds of years in order to bring up the Crusades or whatever point they're trying to make. Well, it's 2015, and the problem we have is radical Islam, no matter how uncomfortable that fact makes them feel.

As an aside, with the recent taking of Ramadi by ISIS, really got to hand it to Obama. A lot of US soldiers died taking those cities and his "feckless foreign policy," to quote one critic, has nullified all that. And I expect that to continue. He doesn't dare upset his far-left supporters by making any real moves against ISIS. He'll just wait out his term and let the next President deal with it.

mmmmm.... isn't that what your hero George w, bush did. create a war by lying about about the supposed weapons saadam hussien had.

didn't bush create this big mess, and then passed it on to Obama. Obama didn't create it, it was passed down to him.

In your mind, define a real move against ISIS, Ivy ^ And I hate to point this out, but Obama is not far left by any stretch. The latest example is thousands of [actual left wing] Seattle ciizens protesting a Shell oil tanker he approved for arctic drilling and sent to the Port of Seattle by blocking its path with their kayaks. Its crazy look it up. I know a whine a good bit about mislabeling but let's get it right. I agree with you about the state of the public and modern Islam. Pointing to the Crusades, CAN be relevant in certain discussions but at the moment it's accomplishing nothing but taking the lens away from the truth: in 2015, the global problem lies not in Christian extremism but in Islamic extremism. But for some that's a bit hard to comprehend.

I just read an article on Vice titled "With Executions on the Rise, Saudi Arabia is Now Hiring Even More Executioners". The first commenter says, "I'm starting to think the Middle East is actually Game of Thrones in real life." The second commenter says "Terrible. Maybe they should try to read the Q'uran instead of killing people." He was put in his place but there's a kind of cognitive dissonance there that should really scare people right?

I'm not a Bush defender because I was not for the war in Iraq, but there's a difference between lying and being mistaken. There was all kinds of intel back then that did strongly support Saddam Hussein having WMDs. In fact when American troops went in they did find stockpiles of chemical weapons, but they were old stockpiles. Hussein also was interested in nuclear weapons against the Iranians. The Israelis bombed a manufacturing facility. Hussein was uncooperative with inspections, fired on U.S. and allied planes in the No Fly Zone, and put a hit out on George H. W. Bush during the Clinton administration. He was also paying the families of suicide bombers $25K and supported more suicide bombing. He also had a past history of using chemical weapons to commit genocide. Any of those could be considered acts of war. Not only that, but one of his top generals, General Georges Sada, said that they did have newer WMDs and trucked them to Syria in the days leading up to the war. He wrote a book about it giving the details, but most people never heard of him. http://www.amazon.com/Saddams-Secrets-Georges-Hormuz-Sada/dp/1595553304


There's also no evidence - ZERO evidence - that G. W. Bush intentionally tried to deceive anyone. When he first became President he was against starting any wars, but 9/11 changed all that. To him the war in Iraq was a defensive war since Hussein supported terrorism, had WMDs, continued to be a threat to Middle Eastern peace, and continuously violated the restrictions placed on him by the United Nations. Let's not forget that there were Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee who had access to classified information and all of them supported invasion. Even Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry voted for the war. So to repeat -- there's nothing to indicate that Bush lied.

Regardless, invading Iraq has to considered the biggest mistake in recent US foreign policy history. If anything, Saddam kept things stable and now we have a much larger threat to the United States than we did before. Maybe Saddam would have nuked the United States or someone else by now but doubtful.

Either nuke the entire region or have dictatorships. It's a different planet, a good buddy of mine did two tours in Iraq - he told me shaking someone's hand is the ultimate sign of disrespect - because they wipe their ass with their hands.

As long as we keep oil producing countries stable that's the best we can hope for.

Maybe you missed this in yesterday's news..

Bush Administration Gave 'False Presentation' Of The True Intelligence, Briefer Charges
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/20/mike-morell-iraq-2016_n_7346990.html

9/11, hawkish administration members, mistaken intelligence reports, and an utterly sensationalist fourth estate (looking at you judy miller) created the perfect storm for the Iraq war. But at the end of the day the burden is still on the president to make the rational decision. I don't think Bush lied about the WMDs per se, he was certainly misled. But once the war drums were beat by Cheney and Wolfowitz (whose policy goals included regime change in Iraq as far back as the 90s and the Iran Iraq war respectively) we all heard a serious lie. And as always, the media saw the potenital for more sensationalism and ran with it. I'm talking of course about this.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
Point is, there is a lie we can directly connect to the beginning of the Iraq war from Bush himself. I don't however, think the omission of this statement would have stopped the war from happening so it may be a moot point.

cheney said that saadam hussien had nuclear weapons , no intelligence supported that notion. in fact it was a bald face lie. the whole administration of bush-cheney presented false information to the people.

http://theweek.com/articles/555921/george-w-bush-didnt-just-lie-about-iraq-war-what-did-much-worse

this one is for you faithful1

Whatever one thinks about going into Iraq in the first place, Obama inherited a relatively stable situation in Iraq when he took office. However, instead of leaving some troops there to maintain order as he was advised to do, he chose to pull out completely, thus leaving a vacuum for our enemies to fill. And we're now seeing the results of that. However, instead of acknowledging that fact, the kneejerk reaction of Obama supporters is to immediately go further back and start in with the "Bush lied" mantra in order to defend their guy.

http://www.alternet.org/media/paul-krugman-drops-epic-truth-bomb-latest-round-lies-about-iraq-war

for you ivy.

Mike Morell's new book has been shown to have a couple lies in it, so his credibility isn't exactly sky high, and HuffPo is hardly an unbiased source.

Krugman huh? That would be like a hardcore Republican pulling something from Sean Hannity and presenting it as evidence to you. But it is interesting how all these "Bush lied" articles are popping up now. The liberal media stepping up to defend their guy as ISIS continues to advance?

Anyway, like I said, whatever one thinks about the initial Iraq invasion, that doesn't change the fact that Obama "inherited" (to use your word) a relatively stable situation there when he took office. But rather than admit his choice to completely pull out was a mistake, you try to deflect the topic to Bush. Quit being such a partisan hack.

faithful, the man admitted on the chris Matthews show that cheney lied about hussien having nuclear weapons.

hes credible. morell was there.

Maybe a case of hindsight being 20/20, but I agree with this. The situation is far worse and I think we are less safe because of it.

Paul Waldman works for the American Prospect, which is a far-left wing Progressive magazine and hated Bush from the beginning. But even someone that far to the Left can be correct, so I examined the article you linked to and there was nothing in there that proved a deliberate attempt to deceive, which is what a lie is. If a parent tells her son that Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer is real and he repeats that to his friends is he lying? No. He's spreading false information, but he believes that it's true. In the case with intelligence data the nature of the game is that the evidence isn't always clear. The Nigerians and British did say and continue to say that Iraq did have WMDs. Bush had to look at the totality of the intelligence combined with the fact that Hussein wasn't cooperative and was claiming he was actively working on a program to fool the Iranians. Waldman was selective in his article and did exactly what he asserted Bush did, not only that, but he failed to examine details and explain himself to make his case. He was clearly biased and it showed.

Who admitted on the Chris Matthews Show that Cheney lied? Dick Cheney was on Chris Matthews? If he wasn't, then it wasn't an admission. I think you're saying that Morell claimed that Cheney lied, which is different than an admission. If it was an admission then it would be Morell admitting that Morell lied, which I don't think is what you're saying. It's a claim.

I'll see if I can find the link on YouTube and watch it, but you ought to know as much as I do that Chris Matthews like to jump to conclusions and has an anti-Republican bias. He's the Sean Hannity of the Left. Anyway, Morell was the guest and I'll see what he had to say. At any rate, theoretically speaking, even if Cheney did lie it doesn't mean Bush did. They're two different people. But I'm a fair guy and will see what Morell had to say. By the way, I'll probably get a copy of Morell's book, but I'll read his book with the same skepticism that I read books about the Mafia.

I think the evidence of bush and co. lying to go to war is now accepted by most as fact.

however, you and others will never be convinced. so be it.we have differences on this matter.

Binnie, to go along with what the majority things is a logical fallacy, an appeal to majority. It's like saying if everyone else jumps off a cliff we should do it too. The majority of people get their information from the media and don't go to the sources themselves. When I want to know the truth about something I try to go to the original sources, and I don't understand why a person would side with a "majority" when that majority hasn't done this extra research.

By doing a simple Google search I found the original interview of Dick Cheney on "Meet the Press" in 2003: http://www.leadingtowar.com/Transcripts/2003_03_16Cheney.php

If you read it, it's clear that Cheney was talking about acquiring nuclear weapons and restarting the nuclear program. In context, Cheney NEVER said that Hussein had nuclear weapons. At one point in the interview Cheney said that "we believe he has reconstituted nuclear weapons," but in context it's clear that he meant "reconstituted nuclear weapons program." How do I know this? Because that's what he said several other times during the interview. Since I put up the link you can read it for yourself if you don't believe me. In fact this was already shown back in 2003 for anyone interested in taking a look: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/207368/cheneys-supposed-lie-doc-rossetti (the author of the article, Doc Rossetti, is a nome de plume for UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh).

I also watched the Chris Matthews interview of Mike Morell here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...its_a_joke.html

Chris Matthews repeatedly interrupted Morell and Matthews made the claim that Cheney said Hussein had nuclear weapons, using that out of context quote. Morell actually said the same thing Cheney said. If you watch it, Matthews starts off by asking Morell why Hillary Clinton and the other Democrats voted for the Iraq War, like he's a mind reader. How does he expect Morell to answer that question? Morell then went to explain the context and said that "we" told "them" that he HAS chemical weapons, he has the potential to make biological weapons, and is RECONSTITUTING a nuclear program. That is the SAME WORD CHENEY USED! That's when Matthews used the out of context quote, and based on the out of context quote Morell said what Cheney said was false.

The FACT is that Tim Russert even pointed out that Cheney misspoke:

"MR. RUSSERT: Reconstituted nuclear weapons. You misspoke.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah. I did misspeak. I said repeatedly during the show weapons capability. We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon."

The transcript that I just quoted is from September 14, 2003 and was -- and is -- available online for free http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3080244/ns/meet_the_press/t/transcript-sept/#.VV5D7UbNKjx. The original interview was on March 16, but the second interview Cheney did with Tim Russert was only six months later, and that's when Russert pointed out the error. The transcripts for these interviews have been online for twelve years, but Matthews cherry-picked the quote where Cheney misspoke to make his case. Do you, Binnie, not think that Matthews was aware of the second interview? This professional news show host with producers and researchers? I think it's clear that Matthews lied and Cheney didn't. Matthews intentionally tried to show Cheney putting out false information when it's clear he did not. Matthews is the deceiver. Morell only gave an opinion based on the clip Matthews showed him.

we disagree on the facts which got us into the Iraq war, so we will just leave it there. I do commend you for your research.

Okay, Binnie. But the claim that Matthews made that Cheney said Saddam had nuclear weapons is false, and he misled Morell. There shouldn't be any doubt about that.

By the way, I found this Senate report from 2008 that also makes it clear that they were aware that Cheney misspoke in that first interview:

https://books.google.com/books?id=t5idp2...003&f=false

Anyway, I haven't really discussed the facts on what got us into the Iraq War, but if Bush (and now Cheney) lied. Again, my point is they didn't lie. I also said I wasn't for the war. To me, the facts show that they made some mistakes in taking us to Iraq, not that they lied and deceived us. I think Mike Morell even made a good case for that.

I will add this: For years Cheney made links between Hussein and Al Qaeda that didn't exist. Maybe he wanted to believe there were links. Years later, starting in 2004 and definitely by 2006, he was forced to admit they weren't linked. Bush, however, came out and said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Some writers claim that the two groups were enemies, but it's not that simple. There were meetings between the two groups, but they didn't cooperate. They were both Sunni and both hated the USA, but it didn't go further than that. But since Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11 we shouldn't have gone to war against it.

"For years Cheney made links between Hussein and Al Qaeda that didn't exist. Maybe he wanted to believe there were links."

I guess this would depend on what your definition of lying is. Whether it's intentional or not, the public was being misled.

IMO Bremer dismantling the existing Iraqi Army right after the initial invasion was the worst decision made

yes, bremer made a horrible decision about what he termed debathifacation, he dismantled the Iraq army, and that is what eventually led to al-quida, and now isis.

it was a mistake of great magnitude, and no one was held accountable for it. congress should have called for hearing.

Bremer wrote a piece several years back that there were people above him who told him to dismantle the Iraqi army and fire all the Baathists. He agreed with it, though. There were issues with Shiites not being willing to follow orders of Sunni/Baathist superiors.

As for Al-Qaeda in Iraq, if you look up Ansar al-Islam was formed from a merger of two previously existing groups in the Kurdistan area of Iraq in September 2001 -- the same month as the 9/11 attacks. Ansar al-Islam became allied with Al-Qaeda then became Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which later became ISIS. So the roots of ISIS already existed before Bremer and before Bush started the Iraq War. ISIS didn't become a threat in Iraq until after the Obama-ordered pullout of Iraq in 2011. Remember, at that time Obama and Biden both said that Iraq was stable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam

good research faithful. thank you for the info.

Ansar al Islam tied to saddam? Even if so, was it worth the invasion?

Ansar al Islam was part of the Al Qaeda network. It was NOT tied to Saddam. There are reports showing that Bin Laden and his operatives did meet with Iraqi officials, but they never worked together. There was no real relationship between Bin Laden and Saddam. Saddam was too secular for Bin Laden. Cheney hyped up the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda and eventually he had to admit there were no ties between the Iraqi government and Bin Laden. Bin Laden was too radical for Saddam Hussein. Hussein didn't want Sharia law and Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network (including Ansar al Islam) did.

If Saddam Hussein wasn't such a dick we could have worked with him. He was a foil to Iran and could have been a foil to Al Qaeda, but when the oil for food program was going on Saddam's people started meeting with Bin Laden's people, and the fear was that Saddam was going to bankroll Bin Laden to commit acts of terrorism against the USA, just like Saddam was bankrolling Hamas for suicide bombing against Israel.

Plus back then Saddam was hoarding the food in the oil for food program and letting his own people starve. Does anyone remember how back then the Far Left was claiming the USA was making poor Iraqis starve because of the program? Saddam Hussein was keeping the food, yet the Left-wing was blaming the USA for it. I don't recall exactly, but he may have been trying to starve out the Shiites and the Kurds, because he hated those two groups.

how the fuck did obama inherit a stable invironment in iraq?

we're not supposed to be there so that's why the middle east is unstable now

because of a false war, our country is broke because of a false war

u talk like we we're supposed to have troops in iraq

Obama inherited the war in Iraq, he did not start it.

why do all of these neo- cons want to revise history ?

and one more thing, bush is the one who negotiated the withdrawal of troops from Iraq not Obama.

bush is also the one that fabricated the entire war with iraq

he admitted that he lied, the middle east would be stable if we didn't go to war

americans pockets would be fuller too

Here's the deal: 1) Bush did get us into a war in Iraq that we shouldn't have gotten into; 2) in 2008/2009 when Bush left office and mostly because of the 2007 surge, the Sunni Islamic terrorists groups like Al Qaeda in Iraq were relatively powerless in Iraq, and Obama and Biden recognized that; 3) In 2007 Bush encouraged the next President, whoever he or she was, to leave an American military force in Iraq, and the suggestion was about 30,000 troops, and that this would be part of the renegotiation of the Status of Forces agreement that the next President would work out; 4) Obama ran on getting all U.S. military out of Iraq and vowed to keep that promise; 5) when Obama renegotiated the Status of Forces agreement it was for a much smaller force of about 5000 troops with a maximum of 10 thousand; 6) Critics say that this much smaller number gave Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki no leverage with members of the council to give American troops immunity; 7) Obama said he couldn't leave any troops in Iraq because of the lack of immunity; 8) Within weeks of the American pullout Al-Qaeda in Iraq/ISIL began attacking the Iraqi government and Shiites, and this continues to today.

So basically Bush shouldn't have sent us to Iraq in the first place and it's possible that if Obama had offered 30,000 troops then immunity would have been granted and ISIS would not have become the monster that it is today. It's not one or the other is true, both are true.

Also, even if ISIS was clamped down on in 2011, it doesn't mean it wouldn't have eventually happened. We, the United States, didn't create Boku Haram in Nigeria, which is an ISIS group. All of these groups came out of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was created in the 1920s. Hamas, Al Qaeda, Boku Haram and ISIS all derive from the MB. They exist in all continents.

thank you faithful. now, its going to be interesting how much this Iraq war is going to come back on jeb bush.
hes already made confusing statements concerning this issue.

I think its going to cost him the nomination from the republicans, he can't be trusted not to go back in Iraq with thousands of ground troops.

and nobody wants thst.

I think most Republicans don't want him. Personally, speaking as an independent, I like Rand Paul.

@faithful

so in other words you're blaming obama for isis

isis is a problem that started because of the iraq war

which u admitted bush started for no reason

which also means bush created isis because of the fallout of a fake war

'

Brilliant.

Nah bro, you got the wrong talking points from Obama Central. ISIS is a JV squad. It is no danger to the world. It is not core al qaeda. We left Iraq a strong and prosperous nation. The fact ISIS took two cities this week means they are losing. Iran, our best friend and allies, will take care of this for us.

He won't know this is sarcasm.

A. I didn't say that Bush started the Iraq War for no reason. He obviously had a reason. I said there was no real connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and that was one of the reasons we went to war. The other reasons were violating U.N. resolutions, firing on American planes in the No-Fly Zone, attempting to assassinate his George H. W. Bush, a history of using WMDs, a history of committing or attempting genocide, still having WMDs, attempting to obtain nukes, planning on developing a nuclear program, supporting terrorism, etc. Those are plenty of reasons.

B. Bush didn't create ISIS because if you read my posts, the group that became ISIS started out in northern Iraq in 2001, before the invasion of Iraq. Anwar al-Islam became Al Qaeda in Iraq and that became ISIL/ISIS/Islamic State.

C. The 2007 surge lead by General Petraeus was successful in defeating Sunni Islamist attacks in Iraq and led to increased peace, which Obama and Biden recognized before he pulled out U.S. troops.

D. Al Qaeda in Iraq resumed attacks about two weeks after we pulled out. That shows that they waited until we were gone, and it's evidence that if we still had a large presence there they probably wouldn't have started those attacks.

E. It wasn't a fake war.

4493 American families can attest to that

Amen to that, brother.

@littlenicky


we left iraq in rubble so how did we leave it a strong nation

a strong nation wouldn't need help from "insurgents"



@faithful

the iraq war was a giant fabrication.......BUSH ADMITTED IT HIMSELF

4493 americans were killed over a lie

I've already gone over this, but you want to ignore all that.

Please put up the link where Bush said he lied or fabricated. Not that he was mistaken, but lied. That means in his own words. A YouTube video of this admission would be great. I'm surprised that Media Matters and Mediaite haven't posted this admission.

What the fuck do you know about soldiers dying? What have you ever done for this country?

When one American soldier dies its a tragedy. They don't need someone like you to speak up for them.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-...stable-and-self

When President Barack Obama removed the last U.S. forces from Iraq in December 2011, he announced that—as he had planned—the U.S. was leaving behind a “sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government.”

It was a "moment of success," he said.

On Feb. 27, 2009, a little more than a month after his first inauguration, Obama gave a speech at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina that the White House entitled, “Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq.”

Obama said then that his strategy was based on the “achievable goal” of a “sovereign, stable and self-reliant” Iraq--and that he intended to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2011, as had been envisioned in the Status of Forces agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration.

“Today, I can announce that our review is complete, and that the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility,” said Obama. “This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists.”

“And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011,” said Obama. “We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned.”

Almost three years later, on Dec. 14, 2011, when he was removing the last U.S. troops from Iraq, Obama gave a speech at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Here he said his strategy based on building a sovereign, stable, self-reliant Iraq had succeeded.

“It’s harder to end a war than begin one,” Obama said at Fort Bragg. “Indeed, everything that American troops have done in Iraq--all the fighting and all the dying, the bleeding and the building, and the training and the partnering--all of it has led to this moment of success. Now, Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. We’re building a new partnership between our nations. And we are ending a war not with a final battle, but with a final march toward home. This is an extraordinary achievement, nearly nine years in the making.”

In the past seven months, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)—a terrorist group that sprang from al Qaeda—has captured Fallujah and Mosul, and is now intent on capturing the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.

the Iraq army escapes your wrath, don't you think they can fight better than they have, if they stood up and fought like we americans they could run isis out of Iraq.

we had build our faith in the Iraqi army, and now they have been a failure, they need [Iraq army] to get together and drive out isis.

They (IA) sell our arms to Isis or in most cases just hand it over to them.

The ISIS fighters are more fierce than the Iraqis because a lot of them are drugged up. They take coke, meth, and whatever to hype them up and not care if they're killed and not care about human life. They also intimidate males to fight for them under threat of killing their families, and they know that those aren't empty threats.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/world/meast/syria-isis-prisoners-watson/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ost-morale.html

http://nypost.com/2015/01/07/are-isis-fighters-fueled-by-piles-of-cocaine/

I said it a few times before, but the Sunni wing of the Iraqi army prefers to either help ISIS or stay neutral. Most officers are from the Saddam regime and they hate the current regime for their ties with the west and their religion(Shia). Binnie that's why Mosul and a handful of other places were handed down to ISIS together with a lot of supplies and money without even fighting.

And as for the ISIS fighters Faithful is right. I just want to add that most of the younger people are brainwashed by promises of heaven and martyrdom. A normal soldier would try to survive and fight on, while these guys don't give a damn about dying. The idea of martyrdom is one of the biggest reasons for them to fight without thinking about consequences.

isis was created because of the destabilization of iraq from fabricated reasons

iraq ain't rebuilt and i don't see any reason for them to fight for acres of rubble

iraq's army was blown to pieces by our millitary and then barely rebuilt

that's why isis is a force in the region

Iraq didn't get to rebuild because of the different religious and ethnic minorities killing each other. The struggles between the Shia and Sunni is a part of the reason ISIS could grow.

Iraq's army was destroyed true and makes me wonder how it was possible that many former pro-saddam officers got high positions in the army, while they were mostly secluded from the government.

And the growth of ISIS can be contributed to more factors, but I agree and think that the biggest factor is the lack of the will to fight by the Iraqi army that made ISIS what it is today.

Iran will takeover Iraq. Isis is nothing to the danger Iran poses.

Iran is fighting Isis let them, and it should be without the help of the U.S.

It basically is Blackwater, but funded by the rich oil tycoons in the middle east. They have money to spend and they are recruiting guys.

In case anyone is interested, Bob Woodward of the Washington Post (the first half of the Woodward-Bernstein team famous for the Watergate investigation) was on Fox News Sunday this past Sunday (May 24, 2015) being interviewed by Chris Wallace. Here's what he had to say about Bush lying about Iraq and Obama and ISIS:

WOODWARD: Yes. Well, I mean Iraq is a symbol. And you certainly can make a persuasive argument it was a mistake. But there is a time that line going along that Bush and the other people lied about this. I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. And lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet, the CIA director, don't let anyone stretch the case on WMD. And he was the one who was skeptical. And if you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, hey, look, it will only take a week or two. And early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months. And so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there is an abundance of evidence. But there was no lying in this that I could find.

WALLACE: And what about 2011 and Obama's decision to pull all the troops out? There had been the status of forces agreement between Bush and the Iraqi government that provided for a follow on force. The Pentagon was talking about somewhere between 10,000 or 20,000. And a lot of people think, although, Obama says well, we tried to negotiate and we didn't. A lot of people think he really didn't want to keep any troops there.

WOODWARD: Well, I think he didn't. Look, Obama does not like war. But as you look back on this, the argument from the military was, let's keep 10,000, 15,000 troops there as an insurance policy. And we all know insurance policies make sense. We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still 65 years or so after the war. When you are a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies. And he didn't in this case. I don't think you can say everything is because of that decision, but clearly a factor.

That is why I blame Obama for ISIS. Contingency force would have been the best route. Hands down our president isn't anywhere near an intelligent human being. I am surprised Darwinism, Natural Selection, Survival of the Fittest hasn't taken effect on him yet like tripping on a banana peel or choking on a peanut.

obama ain't got shit to do with a bunch of mad middle easterners

they were mad and hated us long before obama took office

then we blew up their country and other arab nations/states think they're next

The Darwinism remark applies to you as well, Cook.

^^^^

you're not that thought provoking, just "conservative" about your views

we blew up a whole country and now different groups are fighting for power

sounds fucked up but it's reality

bush or i should say cheney, is responsible for the mess in Iraq. as far as isis goes, what do you expect when you demolish saadams army, and leave them weapons.

I firmly believe bush was cheneys puppet, cheney pulled the strings to get us into Iraq, where he [cheney ] made millions with his partner haliburton. it was all contrived to make cheney rich.

my opinion only.

If Bush was Cheney's puppet then why didn't Bush pardon Scooter Libby? Cheney pleaded with him to pardon Libby, but he only commuted his sentence. The fact is Cheney was influential, but Bush made all the final decisions.

^ Agreed. Blame the idiots who put Obama into office in the first place.

Don't mention Halliburton in a scheme if you ever make it down to Louisiana Binnie. Half the state is employed by them

most the idiots that put obama in office are the same people that voted for bush

bush was such a horrible president that a half-black from hawaii is the president

but obama's agenda was to restore relations with other nations

ISIS captured 88 Christians in Libya

Our foreign relations are worse than ever. Because Obama wants to make a nuclear deal with Iran, the other Middle Eastern leaders can't stand him. He recently set up a high-level meeting where Middle Eastern leaders were supposed to attend and only two showed up. Countries like Saudi Arabia are now saying that if Iran gets nukes, so will they. Relations with Russia haven't been this bad since the Cold War. Egypt doesn't like him because Obama supported (and still supports) the Muslim Brotherhood. That's just from the top of my head but I'm sure there's more.

Then we should pray for them.

Mosul under ISIS rule

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/09/rumsfeld-unrealistic-for-bush-to-pursue-democracy-in-iraq

faithful, what do you make of this guy??

Thoughts go out to the families of the victims in the attacks in Tunisia, France and Kuwait yesterday. Terrible stories coming from various media outlets...

I'm assuming it was co-ordinated, and deliberately on ramadan as some news reports are saying to try and foster more support for Isis. Coincidences never happen in 3's.

Its hard to say exactly how this should be dealt with, needless to say we can accept that we are currently in a bastardised World War, different from what we have accepted as the "norm" (for want of a better expression) from the first 2. Its shifted from a "terrorist hunt" into whats slowly becoming a war of completely opposing ways of life, we just need to make sure it doesn't polarise so much so that it ends up a real World War ie essentially 2 major players against each other

Putting up with this behaviour doesn't show how tolerant we are or how we would be lowering our standards in any way..ban it and interrogate the guy for as long as it takes

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3150089/Man-parading-ISIS-flag-outside-Big-Ben.html

I haven't seen the transcript so I don't know if he's being honest about being misquoted. On the other hand, being misquoted by the media is a pretty common experience.

If he did say that the U.S. didn't go to Iraq to install democracy, that's true. The U.S. did try to create a democracy there, but many have said that Islam and democracy cannot coexist. Maybe they're right. Look what democracy brought to Egypt...the Muslim Brotherhood. It took a military coup to get rid of the MB. I think the Middle East needs more military strongmen like al-Sisi of Egypt, to be honest. Democracy is overrated.

If you're asking me about Donald Rumsfield in general, it's hard to say. When he was Sec. of Defense his policies reflected President Bush's, just as Hillary and Kerry reflect President Obama's as Sec. of State. However, according to Michael Morell, the one thing that the USA blew in Iraq was the de-baathification policy. Rumsfield was in charge of that policy and he was wrong about it.

thank you faithful, great post, you are informed.