Do posters really think there's any rational reason to think terrorists are motivated

[bendog]

or deterred by any democratic political party or by what name anyone refers to them by?

Some muslims are insulted by tying "Islamic" to actions that are not consistent with Islam but that's hardly the largest problem with our international relations with muslim maj countries. but this bullshit about dems or gopers being "tougher" on terrorism is just silly.

It was silly when people said Obama was tougher than W because he sent troops into Pak to kill bin laden, when W did not do so. It's true W didn't send troops into Pak, but it wasn't because he was "soft" on terrorism.

 

[Weatherman2020]

or deterred by any democratic political party or by what name anyone refers to them by?

Some muslims are insulted by tying "Islamic" to actions that are not consistent with Islam but that's hardly the largest problem with our international relations with muslim maj countries. but this bullshit about dems or gopers being "tougher" on terrorism is just silly.

It was silly when people said Obama was tougher than W because he sent troops into Pak to kill bin laden, when W did not do so. It's true W didn't send troops into Pak, but it wasn't because he was "soft" on terrorism.

Manchester is consistent with Islam. Has been the same consistency since 600AD.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Islam is an ideological virus that seeks to spread by any means necessary.

Manchester is simply one symptom, but the disease is already so much more widespread that Europe may not survive it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

or deterred by any democratic political party or by what name anyone refers to them by?

Some muslims are insulted by tying "Islamic" to actions that are not consistent with Islam but that's hardly the largest problem with our international relations with muslim maj countries. but this bullshit about dems or gopers being "tougher" on terrorism is just silly.

It was silly when people said Obama was tougher than W because he sent troops into Pak to kill bin laden, when W did not do so. It's true W didn't send troops into Pak, but it wasn't because he was "soft" on terrorism.

It's nice that bin Laden got painfully shredded with lots of American bullets, but did it change anything?

Nope. Not a thing.

 

[irosie91]

or deterred by any democratic political party or by what name anyone refers to them by?

Some muslims are insulted by tying "Islamic" to actions that are not consistent with Islam but that's hardly the largest problem with our international relations with muslim maj countries. but this bullshit about dems or gopers being "tougher" on terrorism is just silly.

It was silly when people said Obama was tougher than W because he sent troops into Pak to kill bin laden, when W did not do so. It's true W didn't send troops into Pak, but it wasn't because he was "soft" on terrorism.

It's nice that bin Laden got painfully shredded with lots of American bullets, but did it change anything?

Nope. Not a thing.

Bin Laden's execution was a case of "TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE". It is clear that the wait and then do
a little policy is not working---------but I have no idea how to FIX IT

 

[guno]

Islam is an ideological virus that seeks to spread by any means necessary.

Manchester is simply one symptom, but the disease is already so much more widespread that Europe may not survive it.

Islam is an ideological virus that seeks to spread by any means necessary.

like christianity was in the middle ages with the crusades and inquisitions, until it was defanged and declawed by the enlightenment


Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

or deterred by any democratic political party or by what name anyone refers to them by?

Some muslims are insulted by tying "Islamic" to actions that are not consistent with Islam but that's hardly the largest problem with our international relations with muslim maj countries. but this bullshit about dems or gopers being "tougher" on terrorism is just silly.

It was silly when people said Obama was tougher than W because he sent troops into Pak to kill bin laden, when W did not do so. It's true W didn't send troops into Pak, but it wasn't because he was "soft" on terrorism.

It's nice that bin Laden got painfully shredded with lots of American bullets, but did it change anything?

Nope. Not a thing.

Bin Laden's execution was a case of "TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE". It is clear that the wait and then do
a little policy is not working---------but I have no idea how to FIX IT

It was strictly emotional satisfaction. It would not have changed anything earlier or later.

 

[bendog]

or deterred by any democratic political party or by what name anyone refers to them by?

Some muslims are insulted by tying "Islamic" to actions that are not consistent with Islam but that's hardly the largest problem with our international relations with muslim maj countries. but this bullshit about dems or gopers being "tougher" on terrorism is just silly.

It was silly when people said Obama was tougher than W because he sent troops into Pak to kill bin laden, when W did not do so. It's true W didn't send troops into Pak, but it wasn't because he was "soft" on terrorism.

It's nice that bin Laden got painfully shredded with lots of American bullets, but did it change anything?

Nope. Not a thing.

Yeah, and there were muslim terrorists before W invaded Iraq. I don't think our support of Israel is really a root cause. The Ottoman Empire lasted longer than all but one Western royal dynasties, but the arabs/Persians never had any evolution of individual political or economic rights. W was right, imo, in thinking that without that, they are pretty much doomed to despots and theocrats who do not need to obtain nearly universal consent to be governed. But there may not be enough popular demand for consent.

 

[irosie91]

or deterred by any democratic political party or by what name anyone refers to them by?

Some muslims are insulted by tying "Islamic" to actions that are not consistent with Islam but that's hardly the largest problem with our international relations with muslim maj countries. but this bullshit about dems or gopers being "tougher" on terrorism is just silly.

It was silly when people said Obama was tougher than W because he sent troops into Pak to kill bin laden, when W did not do so. It's true W didn't send troops into Pak, but it wasn't because he was "soft" on terrorism.

It's nice that bin Laden got painfully shredded with lots of American bullets, but did it change anything?

Nope. Not a thing.

Bin Laden's execution was a case of "TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE". It is clear that the wait and then do
a little policy is not working---------but I have no idea how to FIX IT

It was strictly emotional satisfaction. It would not have changed anything earlier or later.

had it been done in the 1980s-----it might have helped

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

or deterred by any democratic political party or by what name anyone refers to them by?

Some muslims are insulted by tying "Islamic" to actions that are not consistent with Islam but that's hardly the largest problem with our international relations with muslim maj countries. but this bullshit about dems or gopers being "tougher" on terrorism is just silly.

It was silly when people said Obama was tougher than W because he sent troops into Pak to kill bin laden, when W did not do so. It's true W didn't send troops into Pak, but it wasn't because he was "soft" on terrorism.

It's nice that bin Laden got painfully shredded with lots of American bullets, but did it change anything?

Nope. Not a thing.

Bin Laden's execution was a case of "TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE". It is clear that the wait and then do
a little policy is not working---------but I have no idea how to FIX IT

It was strictly emotional satisfaction. It would not have changed anything earlier or later.

had it been done in the 1980s-----it might have helped

Nope. Squashing Iran in 1979 might have, but Carter wasn't up to it.

 

[Doc1]

Islam (as established my Mohammed) was founded on blood. There is nothing anyone can do to change that. "Moderate Muslims" are every bit the infidel to Islamic Fundamentalists as we are.

 

[bendog]

or deterred by any democratic political party or by what name anyone refers to them by?

Some muslims are insulted by tying "Islamic" to actions that are not consistent with Islam but that's hardly the largest problem with our international relations with muslim maj countries. but this bullshit about dems or gopers being "tougher" on terrorism is just silly.

It was silly when people said Obama was tougher than W because he sent troops into Pak to kill bin laden, when W did not do so. It's true W didn't send troops into Pak, but it wasn't because he was "soft" on terrorism.

It's nice that bin Laden got painfully shredded with lots of American bullets, but did it change anything?

Nope. Not a thing.

Bin Laden's execution was a case of "TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE". It is clear that the wait and then do
a little policy is not working---------but I have no idea how to FIX IT

It was strictly emotional satisfaction. It would not have changed anything earlier or later.

had it been done in the 1980s-----it might have helped

Nope. Squashing Iran in 1979 might have, but Carter wasn't up to it.

It's an asymmetrical war. You can't defeat an ideology militarily that has no geographic basis. The terrorists blame the West for their dissatisfactions, but historically the reasons the western powers entered the picture was there was a lack of political cohesion in muslim maj areas in the first place. I think the dominant thought among western historians is that even the Ottoman Empire just incorporated the political administration of the Byzantines and Eastern Roman Empire.

 

[irosie91]

It's nice that bin Laden got painfully shredded with lots of American bullets, but did it change anything?

Nope. Not a thing.

Bin Laden's execution was a case of "TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE". It is clear that the wait and then do
a little policy is not working---------but I have no idea how to FIX IT

It was strictly emotional satisfaction. It would not have changed anything earlier or later.

had it been done in the 1980s-----it might have helped

Nope. Squashing Iran in 1979 might have, but Carter wasn't up to it.

It's an asymmetrical war. You can't defeat an ideology militarily that has no geographic basis. The terrorists blame the West for their dissatisfactions, but historically the reasons the western powers entered the picture was there was a lack of political cohesion in muslim maj areas in the first place. I think the dominant thought among western historians is that even the Ottoman Empire just incorporated the political administration of the Byzantines and Eastern Roman Empire.

Supporting the Shah might have helped------killing sadaam in the 1960s might have helped-----
had that all happened-------there would have been no Osama and al Qaeda and Isis

 

[The Original Tree]

Terrorists and The Violent Left are motivated by the same thing. They want to impose their values on others. They want to both subjugate people that disagree with them, and if they cannot subjugate them, they both want to destroy them.

 

[Doc1]

It's nice that bin Laden got painfully shredded with lots of American bullets, but did it change anything?

Nope. Not a thing.

Bin Laden's execution was a case of "TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE". It is clear that the wait and then do
a little policy is not working---------but I have no idea how to FIX IT

It was strictly emotional satisfaction. It would not have changed anything earlier or later.

had it been done in the 1980s-----it might have helped

Nope. Squashing Iran in 1979 might have, but Carter wasn't up to it.

It's an asymmetrical war. You can't defeat an ideology militarily that has no geographic basis. The terrorists blame the West for their dissatisfactions, but historically the reasons the western powers entered the picture was there was a lack of political cohesion in muslim maj areas in the first place. I think the dominant thought among western historians is that even the Ottoman Empire just incorporated the political administration of the Byzantines and Eastern Roman Empire.

What I astonishing is that the Western mind is (for the most ) incapable of understanding the mindset of Islamic True Believers. It simply does not compute for them.

 

[irosie91]

Bin Laden's execution was a case of "TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE". It is clear that the wait and then do
a little policy is not working---------but I have no idea how to FIX IT

It was strictly emotional satisfaction. It would not have changed anything earlier or later.

had it been done in the 1980s-----it might have helped

Nope. Squashing Iran in 1979 might have, but Carter wasn't up to it.

It's an asymmetrical war. You can't defeat an ideology militarily that has no geographic basis. The terrorists blame the West for their dissatisfactions, but historically the reasons the western powers entered the picture was there was a lack of political cohesion in muslim maj areas in the first place. I think the dominant thought among western historians is that even the Ottoman Empire just incorporated the political administration of the Byzantines and Eastern Roman Empire.

What I astonishing is that the Western mind is (for the most ) incapable of understanding the mindset of Islamic True Believers. It simply does not compute for them.

so true------the Islamic mindset is VERY "FOREIGN" It takes a SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF-----
on the part of the western mind to DIGEST THE ISSUES OF THE ISLAMIC MIND

 

[Richard-H]

Christianity and Judaism were as bad, historically, as Islamic extremist are today. King David was a butcher. The history of Christianity is full of persecutions and massacres.

The question is: Why have Christian, Jews and most Muslims evolved away from interpreting their religions as a license to commit atrocities, while some Muslims have not?

For us non-religious people, it's obvious that almost a organized religions are about brainwashing and using the brainwashed to dominate all other people.

They're a way of declaring anyone who does not conform to their socio-economic order to be EVIL.

The roots of Islamic terrorism lie in the primordial desire to dominate. But in a modern world these Muslims are unable to adapt, unable to compete, so they resort to mass murder in anger and frustration.

 

[bendog]

Christianity and Judaism were as bad, historically, as Islamic extremist are today. King David was a butcher. The history of Christianity is full of persecutions and massacres.

The question is: Why have Christian, Jews and most Muslims evolved away from interpreting their religions as a license to commit atrocities, while some Muslims have not?

For us non-religious people, it's obvious that almost a organized religions are about brainwashing and using the brainwashed to dominate all other people.

They're a way of declaring anyone who does not conform to their socio-economic order to be EVIL.

The roots of Islamic terrorism lie in the primordial desire to dominate. But in a modern world these Muslims are unable to adapt, unable to compete, so they resort to mass murder in anger and frustration.

We have the docs and the irosies who subscribe to alt-R bs about the maj of muslims being bloodthirsty devils or something, and they are as blind as the Manchester suicide bomber. Their rationale is not rational. Perhaps its attention seeking.

I mean the motivations of bin laden and the core of ISIS are belief that arab states have sold out to the West. That's not baseless, but systematic rape and torture killings are somehow excused. The Taliban are not classic terrorists. But in order to avoid Western corruption, they choose to deny basic healthcare for women. And they NEVER has the consent of the govern. Hobbs argued monarchs were legit, but their legitimacy rested with their willing subjects. I don't think there's much Iranian support for ending their experiment in a theorcratic republic, but individual rights there wouldn't pass in the Age of Elizabeth. And Western homegrown terrorists are beyond rationality because they are people actually personally benefiting from the fruits of being in the West. They can worship as they choose and even protest corruption in the ME without the West putting them in prison. Sending money to hamas apparently got Cat Stevens on a no fly, but we didn't lock him up

The motivations for terrorism are beyond republican and dem labels, and they are just impossible to get one's mind around ... or so it seems.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

or deterred by any democratic political party or by what name anyone refers to them by?

Some muslims are insulted by tying "Islamic" to actions that are not consistent with Islam but that's hardly the largest problem with our international relations with muslim maj countries. but this bullshit about dems or gopers being "tougher" on terrorism is just silly.

It was silly when people said Obama was tougher than W because he sent troops into Pak to kill bin laden, when W did not do so. It's true W didn't send troops into Pak, but it wasn't because he was "soft" on terrorism.

It's nice that bin Laden got painfully shredded with lots of American bullets, but did it change anything?

Nope. Not a thing.

So President Obama was wrong to go after him?




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[blackhawk]

The language used is less about trying to deter terrorist I don't think that has any impact. In my opinion its more about trying to get those in the fight against them more engaged and motivated and to bring those on the sidelines into the fight