patrick.net

bob2356 says

All the groups kill innocent people in the name of their beliefs mostly their beliefs in a God. That's a terrorist in my book. White supremacists aren't terrorists? The IRA isn''t terrorists. Maoists aren't terrorists? Jewish zionist groups aren't terrorists? The Christian Right and Army of God isn't terrorists? So if it's not a muslim machine gunning down or blowing up people it's not a terrorist? Is that how it works?

actually, no, that's not true.

they mostly do not kill due to belief in a god. that's pretty much a muslim-only thing.

white supremacists are just racist.
the IRA is an ethnic insurgency against colonialism. they don't kill because of religion.
maoists don't even believe in god! lol.
zionism is more of a nationalism than a religious thing (just ask Gary!)
Christian Right and Army of God? never heard of them.

and even the tamil suicide bombers were pretty much an atheist nationalist organization, not religious.

so sure, there are other terrorists, but there is no other religion that commits nearly as much terrorism as islam does. and islam does it worldwide.

and even the tamil suicide bombers were pretty much an atheist nationalist organization, not religious.

They were the guys that assassinated the Prime Minister of India in the last century. It was a political, not a religious attack.
Bob, you and Bigs sound like atheist Muslims to me. We need your help, not your BS.

so sure, there are other terrorists, but there is no other religion that causes even a tiny fraction as much terrorism as islam does.

The original statement from strategist was only muslims are terrorists. I haven't heard a retraction of that so far.

So you also believe it's only terrorism if it's about god. Blowing innocent people up or machine gunning them doesn't count unless it's for god? Sorry but that's just bullshit plain and simple. I'm pretty sure all the not killed for god innocent dead people wouldn't agree with your view.

No other religion causes even a tiny fraction as much terrorism as islam? The FBI differs with your opinion. They say there were more Jewish terrorist attacks in the US than Muslim 1980 to 2005. http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/ But what would the FBI know about crime or terrorism?

Oh wait there's all those muslim terrorist attacks in europe. Let's see what europol has to say about terrorism in the EU. In 2006 there were 498 terrorist attacks, 1 islamist. In 2007 there were 583 terrorist attacks, 4 islamist. In 2008 there were 515 terrorist attacks, 0 islamist. Certainly a tiny fraction all right. http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/ But what would europol know about crime or terrorism?

Keep right on sucking up the neocon muslim terrorist boogeyman kool aid while you lose what's left of your rights. There are terrorist attacks all over the world and in america year after year from every type of group imaginable. Left wing, right wing, separatists, supremacists, religious groups of every kind, anti abortionists, animal rights, drug cartels, etc., etc., etc. Yet the only thing your politico's are feeding you day after day is fear of muslim terrorists. Funny how that lines up with the US presence in the middle east.

Radical islam is a problem, not doubt about it. But the root cause is the us's closest ally in the middle east. So you are getting screwed twice. You pay a bunch of money and give up a ton of rights for protection against people sent out by a country you paid a bunch of money to because they are our ally. Monty Python couldn't make this shit up.

Strategist says

and even the tamil suicide bombers were pretty much an atheist nationalist organization, not religious.

They were the guys that assassinated the Prime Minister of India in the last century. It was a political, not a religious attack.

Bob, you and Bigs sound like atheist Muslims to me. We need your help, not your BS.

Really? Do you know why the tamil tigers formed? Because the sinhalese declared buddism the religion of sri lanka. The tamils were hindu's and fought for their religion. They invented the suicide vest. They invented recruiting women and children as suicide bombers. Oh that's right you said only muslims were suicide bombers, I forgot. I'm waiting for you to correct that.

bob2356 says

No other religion causes even a tiny fraction as much terrorism as islam? The FBI differs with your opinion. They say there were more Jewish terrorist attacks in the US than Muslim 1980 to 2005. http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/ But what would the FBI know about crime or terrorism?

Wow, what a Loony Website. Key: "On US Soil".

18 Acts of "Jewish Terrorism", of which 15 were JDL and the vast majority was "Damage to Property" "Death Threats" etc. Also included, in this tiny number spanning 25 years, offering money to anybody who shot at a Nazi Rally.

In the handful of deaths, they were largely right. CIA lied to the State Department about their Agent's Circassian-Nazi Past, who was intimately involved in killing Jews during WW2 for Hitler. The usual defenders of Nazi War Criminals (Pat Buchanan types who came out for smirking Jon Demanjuk) screamed and yelled. Now it's been declassified and the JDL was 100% correct. Had the JDL not assassinated him, he would have continued to live fat and happy on US Taxpayer Social Security to his death in a Medicare-paid nursing home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tscherim_Soobzokov

If Jewish Terrorists actually conducted 18 "what most people would consider Terrorist" attacks in this country, you'd know about it because Gary and others like him would be repeating it endlessly.

When Americans hear "Terrorism" they think of somebody trying to blow up the WTC or shooting up LAX. Using the "FBI" definition of terrorism, any kid who calls in a bomb threat to get out of school and which goes unsolved, but claims in his phone call it's the Radical More Yogurt for Youth Front, then the FBI will put add a "1" next to "Dangerous Food-concern Terrorism".

bob2356 says

Because the sinhalese declared buddism the religion of sri lanka. The tamils were hindu's and fought for their religion.

no actually, it was because the british colonial masters favored the tamil minority, and when they left, the sinhalese discriminated against tamils.

the groups have different religions, but it's not about religion per se.

no one blew themselves up for lord krishna.

also, hinduism has no mandate to convert or kill the entire population of earth, the way islam does.

bob2356 says

The original statement from strategist was only muslims are terrorists. I haven't heard a retraction of that so far.

Never said that.

bob2356 says

No other religion causes even a tiny fraction as much terrorism as islam? The FBI differs with your opinion. They say there were more Jewish terrorist attacks in the US than Muslim 1980 to 2005. http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/ But what would the FBI know about crime or terrorism?

Oh wait there's all those muslim terrorist attacks in europe. Let's see what europol has to say about terrorism in the EU. In 2006 there were 498 terrorist attacks, 1 islamist. In 2007 there were 583 terrorist attacks, 4 islamist. In 2008 there were 515 terrorist attacks, 0 islamist. Certainly a tiny fraction all right. http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/ But what would europol know about crime or terrorism?

LOL. You are so funny Bob. It's a web site for loonies.

bob2356 says

Really? Do you know why the tamil tigers formed?

I looked it up. It was political. See for yourself:
http://theglobalstate.com/history/the-tamil-tigers-and-their-quest-for-an-independent-homeland-in-sri-lanka/

Strategist says

Where does Muslim violence in the rest of the world come from? Are you gonna come up with an excuse for Islamic violence in every country that is a target of suicide bombers?Africa, Asia and S America are full of poverty stricken people, but it's only the Muslims there who commit terrorism.

Strategist says

bob2356 says

The original statement from strategist was only muslims are terrorists. I haven't heard a retraction of that so far.

Never said that.

Yea you did. Still waiting to hear how you fucked up.

Strategist says

LOL. You are so funny Bob. It's a web site for loonies.

Show where the numbers are wrong then. I'll wait and wait, and wait, and wait.

Strategist says

I looked it up. It was political. See for yourself:

http://theglobalstate.com/history/the-tamil-tigers-and-their-quest-for-an-independent-homeland-in-sri-lanka/

I asked if you knew how the Tamil started. They evolved into a political independence movement to some degree, but they started as a religious movement and that was always a big part of the struggle. Maybe you should have read it after you looked it up. In Sri Lanka, the 3rd most devout country in the world where 99% of people say religion is important in their daily lives, these harsh governmental restrictions on Hinduism prompted fierce Tamil backlash..

BTW do you realize Sri Lanka is in asia where you claim only muslims commit terrorism? Last time I checked Hinduism is not one of the branches of islam. How does that work?

bob2356 says

Strategist says

bob2356 says

The original statement from strategist was only muslims are terrorists. I haven't heard a retraction of that so far.

Never said that.

Yea you did. Still waiting to hear how you fucked up.

Out of context.

bob2356 says

Show where the numbers are wrong then. I'll wait and wait, and wait, and wait.

99% of all terrorism is Islamic based. Most terrorism in the Mid East is probably not even reported, because it's not news anymore.
All it took is a handful of Allah loving wackos to shut down a whole country. A handful of these same wackos shut down our country after 911. No matter how you twist your well versed arguments, the threat of Islam and the destruction it is capable of, cannot be played down, and must be eliminated.

bob2356 says

BTW do you realize Sri Lanka is in asia where you claim only muslims commit terrorism? Last time I checked Hinduism is not one of the branches of islam. How does that work?

This proves what we already know. All religions are capable of violence and destruction, as history has repeatedly shown. Nothing even comes close to the destructive power of Islam, where a handful of jihadis can shut down whole countries.

Strategist says

This proves what we already know. All religions are capable of violence and destruction, as history has repeatedly shown. Nothing even comes close to the destructive power of Islam, where a handful of jihadis can shut down whole countries.

Seriously? What do you think Iraqis or the Vietnamese might say about the destructive force of US 'Christians?' Or all the countries that could say the same about GB. Perspective.

Bigsby says

Seriously? What do you think Iraqis or the Vietnamese might say about the destructive force of US 'Christians?'

The Vietnam war was purely political. They would refer to the destructive power of the USA, not Christians.

Bigsby says

Or all the countries that could say the same about GB. Perspective.

Again, it's political.
No religion comes even close to the destructive power of Islam. Bob kindly referred to the Shri Lankan Hindus, who were undoubtedly terrorists. They, however, confined themselves to a small part of the world. The destructive power of Islam has reached all 4 corners of the world, and seems to grow by the day. We have no choice but to kill the beast.

Strategist says

The Vietnam war was purely political. They would refer to the destructive power of the USA, not Christians.

And the Iraqis?

Strategist says

We have no choice but to kill the beast.

What does that even mean?
And as I said, the destructive power of Islam as you put it is nothing to that of the Christian West if you actually care to look at the situation from a different perspective, something which you are apparently unwilling to do.

This attack underscores the need for France to immediately engage in negotiations with French Muslims to create two states side-by-side with Paris as a shared capitol

Blurtman says

I am no expert on Islam, but if you kill citizens in Syria, Syrians just might kill citizens in your country. It was published in the Lancet that the USA's bombing campaign at the start of the last Iraq war killed 100,000 civilians. Look at the misery the USA's invasion of Iraq has caused.

Why are you aping Islamist propaganda saying the West killed all those Muslims? No wonder there are so many ISIS recruits when we have dopey Leftists like you regurgitating the same propaganda as Saudi funded Imams.

You DO REALIZE that Muslims killed the vast majority of Muslims in both Iraq and Afghanistan - right? Let alone killing the majority of Christians, Kurds, Yazidis and moderate secular Muslims.

Even the UN and Wikileaks cables admits it.

"UN - Most Afghan civilian deaths 'caused by Taliban attacks, not US forces'"
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/09/afghanistan-insurgents-civilian-victims

"The reports in the archive disclosed by WikiLeaks offer an incomplete, yet startlingly graphic portrait of one of the most contentious issues in the Iraq war — how many Iraqi civilians have been killed and by whom.

The reports make it clear that most civilians, by far, were killed by other Iraqis."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23casualties.html?_r=1

Strategist says

Bob kindly referred to the Shri Lankan Hindus, who were undoubtedly terrorists.

And that's another example. Why were they undoubtedly terrorists? You say that without any knowledge of what happened in that country. You can't even spell it correctly FFS.

Bigsby says

And that's another example. Why were they undoubtedly terrorists? You say that without any knowledge of what happened in that country. You can't even spell it correctly FFS.

The Founding Fathers would be terrorists by today's standard.

socal2 says

Why are you aping Islamist propaganda saying the West killed all those Muslims? No wonder there are so many ISIS recruits when we have dopey Leftists like you regurgitating the same propaganda as Saudi funded Imams.

You can't possibly say that. 100,000 dead civilians isn't the propaganda figure, is it? That's one of the lower estimates. No one knows the exact figure, but coalition forces killed a great many people, about that there is no debate. I have a Japanese friend who used to do charity work in Fallujah. I've seen many photos of (the exceptionally high rate) of deformed births as a result of the depleted uranium contaminating the area. That is going on now, and will continue and is just but one example. People in the region see this. They know about it. It shapes opinion and attitudes.

Worth repeating.

Muslims have killed far more Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and the Middle East than the US (or Israel) could ever dream of. It is not even close.

To project all those sectarian/religious deaths on the US, Israel, France........West is to ape ISIS propaganda.

socal2 says

Worth repeating.

Muslims have killed far more Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and the Middle East than the US (or Israel) could ever dream of. It is not even close.

To project all those sectarian/religious deaths on the US, Israel, France........West is to ape ISIS propaganda.

That doesn't then somehow negate the huge number of deaths of non-combatants caused by coalition forces. And there are many who lay the subsequent sectarian violence squarely at the door of the US and for pretty good reason.

Bigsby says

You can't possibly say that. 100,000 dead civilians isn't the propaganda figure, is it? That's one of the lower estimates. No one knows the exact figure, but coalition forces killed a great many people, about that there is no debate.

I am not disputing the 100,000 number, I am disputing the notion that the US killed all those people.

It was ISIS/AQI (and former Sunni Baathists) that were blowing up markets, schools and people lining up for government jobs killing 200-300 at a clip. The same Sunni group was blowing up Shia shrines and inviting Iranian-backed Shiite reprisals on Sunnis.

Sunnis were trying to kill there way back into power and US forces were largely protecting the majority Shia population and targeting the worst of the Sunni radicals.

Bigsby says

That doesn't then somehow negate the huge number of deaths of non-combatants caused by coalition forces. And there are many who lay the subsequent sectarian violence squarely at the door of the US and for pretty good reason.

By infantilizing Muslims pretending they have no responsibility for killing each other - plays right into ISIS' hands. Sunnis and Shias hated each other long before the US even fucking existed.

Islam will never have its much needed reformation when people like you continue to blame their MASSIVE dysfunction and centuries old sectarian problems on the US.

Besides, if you are going to argue that the US is solely responsible for all the deaths by liberating the majority Shias and Kurds from Sunni Baathist rule, than you must also argue that the US (Obama and Hillary) have all the blame for the 1000X worse violence and refugee crisis in the Region for pulling every last troop out of Iraq and toppling Libya on the way out of town creating an even bigger void.

I agree with thread's author. The people in Paris need to take a hard look at putting a stop to their central government exporting violence to other countries. According to Dr. Paul, the French government has been one of the most ardent when it comes to arming radical factions. To all the naysayer's I ask you to provide a single reference to this kind of thing happening anytime before the 90's when the US extended it's imperialism to the Middle East in Iraq.

The Islam practiced by the majority of believers advocates peace, not violence. Read the last few chapters of Malcom's X's autobiography about his trip to Mecca. Talk to an Islamic believer in your area, or a friend who knows one personally. Or maybe you believe Jonestown was a model of mainstream protestant beliefs? I know a first generation German migrant who told me Turkish Muslims have been living in Germany since the end of WWII, and they have been model German citizens.

The views expressed by many here are why Americans are seen as such arrogant assholes in much of the world.

A link to the Ron Paul interview:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-16/ron-paul-what-should-be-done-about-paris

socal2 says

I am not disputing the 100,000 number, I am disputing the notion that the US killed all those people.

If nobody knows what the real figure is, then how can you dispute how many the coalition forces killed?

socal2 says

It was ISIS/AQI (and former Sunni Baathists) that were blowing up markets, schools and people lining up for government jobs killing 200-300 at a clip. The same Sunni group was blowing up Shia shrines and inviting Iranian-backed Shiite reprisals on Sunnis.

Sunnis were trying to kill there way back into power and US forces were largely protecting the majority Shia population and targeting the worst of the Sunni radicals.

Yes, and what do you think the coalition forces did when they invaded, and then when they battled the insurgency? And most of the 100,000+ figures are for 2003-2006, a period before sectarian violence really took a grip, so the bombings you mention don't really figure in the totals mentioned.

NuttBoxer says

To all the naysayer's I ask you to provide a single reference to this kind of thing happening anytime before the 90's when the US extended it's imperialism to the Middle East in Iraq.

True, there were very few incidents, but they were fighting others around the world. The violence is documented far back beyond the '90s. Nobody disputed that meddling in the middle-east certainly caused some blowback. And then again, if you take an isolationist stance which is fine, you should be prepared for Israel annihilating its threatening neighbors (and they don't need US weapons for this, they got their own and enough money to buy plenty). Keeping out of the middle-east means telling nobody what to do, and you're giving the US not enough credit to trying to prevent a full blown war in the middle-east as well, amongst all the mistakes of interfering too much.

NuttBoxer says

A link to the Ron Paul interview:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-16/ron-paul-what-should-be-done-about-paris

Apart from withdrawing from the middle-east Ron Paul also advocated securing and severely tightening the homeland borders and defending against anybody challenging western values.

NuttBoxer says

I agree with thread's author. The people in Paris need to take a hard look at putting a stop to their central government exporting violence to other countries.

Sheesh - more victim blaming.

How dare France or the West try to stop ISIS from taking more sex slaves, committing genocide against religious minorities and destroying ancient archaeological sites as they build their 7th century Caliphate?

Face it, Islam is in crisis right now. Globalization is forcing Muslims to deal with modernity, secularism and pluralism. Many don't like it. The majority of Muslims may be non-radical, but we have all seen what the radical 10-15% can do around the world. And even the moderate Muslims are growing more fundamentalist as evident by the massive increase in women being forced to wear burqas compared to Muslim women in Iran, Afghanistan and Egypt during the 1970's.

socal2 says

How dare France or the West try to stop ISIS from taking more sex slaves, committing genocide against religious minorities and destroying ancient archaeological sites as they build their 7th century Caliphate?

Not sure if you intentionally misconstrued my post, or just have a short attention span. As I mentioned the Ron Paul article points to France arming radical jihadists(Isis), not killing them. Maybe you aren't aware of the tension Russia has caused by actually helping Syria get rid of Isis, while the US tries to keep Isis active. Of course you probably also haven't read about how the US created Isis in the first place.

I don't blame the people killed in France, they were sheep readily sacrificed by their central government as it pursues it's own interests in Syria.

socal2 says

By infantilizing Muslims pretending they have no responsibility for killing each other - plays right into ISIS' hands. Sunnis and Shias hated each other long before the US even fucking existed.

I'm doing no such thing. Of course they hold responsibility for killing each other. That doesn't then somehow push aside the fact that the coalition forces killed tens of thousands of men, women, and children who played no part in the fighting.

socal2 says

Islam will never have its much needed reformation when people like you continue to blame their MASSIVE dysfunction and centuries old sectarian problems on the US.

Except again, I'm doing no such thing. I'm simply stating that the coalition forces were responsible for the deaths of a great many individuals in that region. That is a fact. That Muslims also kill one another for ridiculous sectarian reasons doesn't change that basic fact.

socal2 says

Besides, if you are going to argue that the US is solely responsible for all the deaths by liberating the majority Shias and Kurds from Sunni Baathist rule, than you must also argue that the US (Obama and Hillary) have all the blame for the 1000X worse violence and refugee crisis in the Region for pulling every last troop out of Iraq and toppling Libya on the way out of town creating an even bigger void.

Where did I say they were solely responsible? And those troops were pulled out on the back of an agreement reached by Bush, so blame Bush for that if you want to blame anyone. You can also blame Bush for doing absolutely nothing to prevent the descent into sectarian fighting, and in fact his policies - the break up of the army and the Baathists and allowing Nouri al-Maliki to take power - did a great deal to worsen the situation.

Bigsby says

If nobody knows what the real figure is, then how can you dispute how many the coalition forces killed?

I provided a link a few posts up from the UN and Wikileaks that say Muslims are responsible for the vast majority of the deaths in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

When we liberated France, Italy, South Korea, Belgium, Netherlands during WWII........did all the people go on a rampage killing each other like we see in Iraq? Sure there was some revenge killing against the Vichey and Nazi sympathizers, but nothing like the sectarian violence we see in the Middle East.

The massive violence, intolerance and backwardness we see in the Muslim/Arab world goes back centuries.

The moderate Muslims refugees fleeing to the West in Europe sure as shit knows who is killing them. Why are they fleeing to the West or France if they believe that France is responsible for exporting violence in the Region as NuttBoxer and Ron Paul dopes allege?

So please quit regurgitating ISIS prop. You only empower the radicals at the expense of the moderate Muslims by blaming all those deaths on America or the West.

NuttBoxer says

Not sure if you intentionally misconstrued my post, or just have a short attention span. As I mentioned the Ron Paul article points to France arming radical jihadists(Isis), not killing them. Maybe you aren't aware of the tension Russia has caused by actually helping Syria get rid of Isis, while the US tries to keep Isis active. Of course you probably also haven't read about how the US created Isis in the first place.

Now you are quoting Russian prop.

The West is trying to work with the least worst crazy Sunnis in the Region. We are targeting ISIS with our bombings while Russia is bombing our trained allies to keep Assad in power.

socal2 says

Sheesh - more victim blaming.

How dare France or the West try to stop ISIS from taking more sex slaves, committing genocide against religious minorities and destroying ancient archaeological sites as they build their 7th century Caliphate?

They aren't bloody trying very hard or very effectively. That is the point. They have half-cocked policies that seem to be doing nothing but worsening the refugee crisis. They've had no coherent plan for years now. Look at the bloody mess they made of Libya. You can't just bomb away somewhere and then leave the population to pick up the pieces and think that it's all going to work out in the West's favour.

Bigsby says

That doesn't then somehow push aside the fact that the coalition forces killed tens of thousands of men, women, and children who played no part in the fighting.

Again, according to the UN and Wikileaks cables, over 70% (the vast majority) of civilians were killed by Sunni/Shia radicals and the Taliban.

Just a few posts earlier, you are insinuating that America killed over 100,000 innocent civilians.

That is ISIS prop, straight up.

mell says

Apart from withdrawing from the middle-east Ron Paul also advocated securing and severely tightening the homeland borders and defending against anybody challenging western values.

Paul has often been incorrectly labeled an isolationist when he is the opposite. Not wanting to stick your nose into your neighbors/friends business without an invitation is not isolationist, it's being polite. And will actually encourage relations and trade. I doubt he has ever been a proponent of the DHS. More likely he is thinking of the old system where the states enforced their own borders. As a San Diegan I know for a fact things ran a lot smoother, and friendlier back then.

Bigsby says

They aren't bloody trying very hard or very effectively. That is the point. They have half-cocked policies that seem to be do nothing but worsening the refugee crisis. They've had no coherent plan for years now. Look at the bloody mess they made of Libya. You can't just bomb away somewhere and then leave the population to pick up the pieces and think that it's all going to work out in the West's favour.

I can't defend Obama and Hillary's foreign policy at all. They fucked a great deal up. And contrary to your assertion, the Iraqis and US generals wanted to keep US troops in Iraq after 2011. Here is a long report in the New Yorker from one of the best reporters in the Region (Dexter Filkins) quoting Maliki saying "he didn't know what to sell to the Iraq people" in terms of keeping US troops since Obama was so disengaged and determined to remove all troops before the 2012 election.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/04/28/what-we-left-behind

When Bush left office, Iraq was having elections and was much more stable. AQI was driven from the Sunni Triangle and ISIS didn't exist. The wider Middle East was very hopeful with the Arab Spring and even the Iranians were out in the streets protesting against the Mullahs.

Things were so stable, Joe Biden was crowing that Iraq will be Obama's greatest achievement!

https://www.youtube.com/embed/tLteUGkvpOc

Obama was in a similar situation as Clinton and Bush Sr were when the USSR imploded and were able to better manage the transition of a post-Communist world.

Wiser leaders could have managed this much needed transition. But instead, they pulled every fucking last troop from Iraq and toppled Gadaffi on the way out of town with no plan to help pick up the pieces. And now ISIS has filled the void causing the biggest human refugee crisis in modern history which is now spilling out on the streets of Paris.

socal2 says

I provided a link a few posts up from the UN and Wikileaks that say Muslims are responsible for the vast majority of the deaths in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

And go to any site on the topic and you'll see figures ranging from 110,000 or so right up to a million for the period of 2003-2006. Those figures predominantly reflect deaths caused by coalition forces.

socal2 says

When we liberated France, Italy, South Korea, Belgium, Netherlands during WWII........did all the people go on a rampage killing each other like we see in Iraq? Sure there was some revenge killing against the Vichey and Nazi sympathizers, but nothing like the sectarian violence we see in the Middle East.

The circumstances aren't remotely the same.

socal2 says

The massive violence, intolerance and backwardness we see in the Muslim/Arab world goes back centuries.

The moderate Muslims refugees fleeing to the West in Europe sure as shit knows who is killing them. Why are they fleeing to the West or France if they believe that France is responsible for exporting violence in the Region as NuttBoxer and Ron Paul dopes allege?

In what way has violence in the Arab world been any worse than in Europe or America over the centuries? I'd say it's been far far worse in Europe for starters.
And you'll find that for a multitude of reasons many of the Arab countries outside of Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey aren't letting the Syrians in. Where else do you imagine they would try to go in order to get work, food...? They blame Assad and ISIS for the troubles, but there are also plenty who blame the West for the deaths it's caused and the instability that has developed. That's pretty natural given what has unfolded in the last 12 years.

socal2 says

Again, according to the UN and Wikileaks cables, over 70% (the vast majority) of civilians were killed by Sunni/Shia radicals and the Taliban.

Just a few posts earlier, you are insinuating that America killed over 100,000 innocent civilians.

That is ISIS prop, straight up.

No, it's not. The 100,000 figure is the low end of estimates for the 2003-2006 period. The sectarian violence is largely post 2006, so how are the figures mentioned ISIS propaganda? The numbers aren't even coming from ISIS FFS.

NuttBoxer says

Not wanting to stick your nose into your neighbors/friends business without an invitation is not isolationist, it's being polite.

That these days is commonly referred to as isolationist in a globalized world, I don't care about the term. And there are plenty who argue you cannot look over a humanitarian crisis or genocide happening in any region. I tend to agree with not to meddle, but it is an interesting discussion and cannot be easily dismissed.

NuttBoxer says

And will actually encourage relations and trade. I doubt he has ever been a proponent of the DHS. More likely he is thinking of the old system where the states enforced their own borders. As a San Diegan I know for a fact things ran a lot smoother, and friendlier back then.

Yeah but encouraging trade has not much to do with securing the borders against immigration. The problem he has wit the DHS is the broad application of spying laws against their own citizens and partially abandoning habeas corpus. I agree mostly with him but again this has not much to do with securing borders and limiting immigration, esp. illegal from not desired parts and cultures. If states could run their own security business I suspect many would have followed Alabama and Michigan. And I am for less federal and more state government (of course then you also have to live without transfer payments). Legal immigrants paying their dues should always be the preferred (if not the only) way of handling immigration, it is only fair to those that come here legally and provide their skills and pay taxes and lawyer/DHS fees.

socal2 says

The West is trying to work with the least worst crazy Sunnis in the Region. We are targeting ISIS with our bombings while Russia is bombing our trained allies to keep Assad in power.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You know very clearly who Russia is helping, but not who the US/France is helping...

Maybe you should try actually talking to a Syrian to find out how they view things. I've seen a few interviews, and they were all pretty well off before US/France/England/Etc. started destabilizing their country and bombing their homes.

I guess you view Iraq as a giant success right? We HELPED lots of people their using the same techniques.

socal2 says

And contrary to your assertion, the Iraqis and US generals wanted to keep US troops in Iraq after 2011.

Where did I make that assertion? I said Obama implemented the plan agreed by Bush.

socal2 says

When Bush left office, Iraq was having elections and was much more stable. AQI was driven from the Sunni Triangle and ISIS didn't exist. The wider Middle East was very hopeful with the Arab Spring and even the Iranians were out in the streets protesting against the Mullahs.

Things were so stable, Joe Biden was crowing that Iraq will be Obama's greatest achievement!

Except it wasn't stable, which is why it would have been better for the troops to have remained (isn't hindsight a very convenient thing) and for that agreement not to have been signed (by Bush), but that was clearly not what the US electorate wanted, and with an election coming around do you really think any US leader would have backed out of that agreement? It would have been political suicide.

Bigsby says

No, it's not. The 100,000 figure is the low end of estimates for the 2003-2006 period, so how is that ISIS propaganda?

Because you are saying Americans killed all those Iraqis. When in fact most of the deaths came from AQI, Sunni Baathists and Iranian backed Shia militias.

The largest single day death tolls of civilians in Iraq (BY FAR) came from the massive suicide and truck bombs that were placed in markets, schools, Mosques and government buildings.

The SAME fuckers that just shot up Paris are the SAME ones that are holding sex slaves and committing genocide in places like Mosul.

Sure you can blame the US for not being able to stop the psychopathic hatred Muslims in Iraq have for each other, but that is a big difference than claiming America personally bombed and killed all those civilians.

US forces were killed and maimed by the thousands trying to keep the primitive Muslims from killing each other.

NuttBoxer says

Maybe you should try actually talking to a Syrian to find out how they view things. I've seen a few interviews, and they were all pretty well off before US/France/England/Etc. started destabilizing their country and bombing their homes.

Which Syrians are you talking about? The minority Allawites that ruled over the majority Sunni with Assad? Of course, they are pissed that they no longer have dictatorial rule over the majority Sunnis. Just like the Sunni Baathists were pissed when they lost dictatorial control over the majority Shia in 2003. Life's a bitch and there is no way the old European drawn borders were going to hold with minority sects brutally ruling over the majority populations.

And long before the US/France/England got involved in Syria, the Sunnis were peacefully protesting before Assad started using Russian and Iranian arms to rubble Syrian cities creating the biggest refugee crisis in modern history and radicalizing the remaining population to ISIS.