Terrorism Dilemma

[Dim Bulb]

The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.

The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.

Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.

Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.

 

[miketx]

The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.

The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.

Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.

Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.

Muslim countries are never going to be allies. They are never going to even come to the 18th century. They will forever be barbarian butchers that only a high velocity impact.

 

[Dim Bulb]

The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.

The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.

Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.

Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.

Muslim countries are never going to be allies. They are never going to even come to the 18th century. They will forever be barbarian butchers that only a high velocity impact.

Let me use an absurd example: If every one of these terrorists had a job in which they were making EU100K/year, I wonder how many fewer suicide attacks there would be?

 

[The Irish Ram]

The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.

The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.

Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.

Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.

Thing is they Bentham's quote and replace it with "kill the infidels."
Not in our house...

 

[miketx]

The real terrorist dilemma:

 

[Godboy]

The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.

The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.

Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.

Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.

Muslim countries are never going to be allies. They are never going to even come to the 18th century. They will forever be barbarian butchers that only a high velocity impact.

Let me use an absurd example: If every one of these terrorists had a job in which they were making EU100K/year, I wonder how many fewer suicide attacks there would be?

They aren't qualified to do anything that would pay them that kind of money. These are ignorant, uneducated people, so THAT idea isn't going to work.

The solution to terrorism isn't jobs. The only way terrorism gets stopped is if the moderate Muslims stop supporting extremist views, but they won't do that. They will continue to praise terrorism at the dinner table, ensuring that young Akmed will grow up thinking terrorism is cool and romantic.

 

[Dim Bulb]

The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.

The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.

Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.

Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.

Muslim countries are never going to be allies. They are never going to even come to the 18th century. They will forever be barbarian butchers that only a high velocity impact.

Let me use an absurd example: If every one of these terrorists had a job in which they were making EU100K/year, I wonder how many fewer suicide attacks there would be?

They aren't qualified to do anything that would pay them that kind of money. These are ignorant, uneducated people, so THAT idea isn't going to work.

The solution to terrorism isn't jobs. The only way terrorism gets stopped is if the moderate Muslims stop supporting extremist views, but they won't do that. They will continue to praise terrorism at the dinner table, ensuring that young Akmed will grow up thinking terrorism is cool and romantic.

I agree. So how do you do that? If the Saudi royalty would create an engaged middle class maybe they would be inclined to do what you say. I don't think it will spontaneously happen without being goosed.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.

The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.

Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.

Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.

Muslim countries are never going to be allies. They are never going to even come to the 18th century. They will forever be barbarian butchers that only a high velocity impact.

Let me use an absurd example: If every one of these terrorists had a job in which they were making EU100K/year, I wonder how many fewer suicide attacks there would be?

Most are a bunch of inbred morons with zero skills.
So how exactly are they going to earn that 100k?

 

[Dim Bulb]

The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.

The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.

Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.

Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.

Muslim countries are never going to be allies. They are never going to even come to the 18th century. They will forever be barbarian butchers that only a high velocity impact.

Let me use an absurd example: If every one of these terrorists had a job in which they were making EU100K/year, I wonder how many fewer suicide attacks there would be?

Most are a bunch of inbred morons with zero skills.
So how exactly are they going to earn that 100k?

I said it was an absurd example. I use it to make the point that although I support MUCH stricter vetting (not only of immigrants, but also of US citizens), I also believe that giving the Arab underclass a stake in the system would reduce terrorism. The more you have to lose, the less likely you are to blow yourself up.

 

[WillMunny]

If it's that easy to provoke a muslim into becoming a killing machine, that's all the more reason not to have that hate ideology in this country in the first place. Jobs won't change anything; all the 911 hijackers came from wealthy, well-educated background. The one commonality of this attacks is a murderous hate ideology with a 100% track record of causing violence wherever it goes and never peacefully co-existing with anyone. Founded by a mass murderer.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.

The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.

Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.

Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.

Muslim countries are never going to be allies. They are never going to even come to the 18th century. They will forever be barbarian butchers that only a high velocity impact.

Let me use an absurd example: If every one of these terrorists had a job in which they were making EU100K/year, I wonder how many fewer suicide attacks there would be?

Most are a bunch of inbred morons with zero skills.
So how exactly are they going to earn that 100k?

I said it was an absurd example. I use it to make the point that although I support MUCH stricter vetting (not only of immigrants, but also of US citizens), I also believe that giving the Arab underclass a stake in the system would reduce terrorism. The more you have to lose, the less likely you are to blow yourself up.

Doesnt change the fact that they are morons.
Not sure how you go about raising their living standards when they're dumb enough to be talked into blowing themselves up.

 

[Dim Bulb]

The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.

The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.

Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.

Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.

Muslim countries are never going to be allies. They are never going to even come to the 18th century. They will forever be barbarian butchers that only a high velocity impact.

Let me use an absurd example: If every one of these terrorists had a job in which they were making EU100K/year, I wonder how many fewer suicide attacks there would be?

Most are a bunch of inbred morons with zero skills.
So how exactly are they going to earn that 100k?

I said it was an absurd example. I use it to make the point that although I support MUCH stricter vetting (not only of immigrants, but also of US citizens), I also believe that giving the Arab underclass a stake in the system would reduce terrorism. The more you have to lose, the less likely you are to blow yourself up.

Doesnt change the fact that they are morons.
Not sure how you go about raising their living standards when they're dumb enough to be talked into blowing themselves up.

So what's your solution?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Muslim countries are never going to be allies. They are never going to even come to the 18th century. They will forever be barbarian butchers that only a high velocity impact.

Let me use an absurd example: If every one of these terrorists had a job in which they were making EU100K/year, I wonder how many fewer suicide attacks there would be?

Most are a bunch of inbred morons with zero skills.
So how exactly are they going to earn that 100k?

I said it was an absurd example. I use it to make the point that although I support MUCH stricter vetting (not only of immigrants, but also of US citizens), I also believe that giving the Arab underclass a stake in the system would reduce terrorism. The more you have to lose, the less likely you are to blow yourself up.

Doesnt change the fact that they are morons.
Not sure how you go about raising their living standards when they're dumb enough to be talked into blowing themselves up.

So what's your solution?

 

[WillowTree]

The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.

The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.

Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.

Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.

That's ALWAYS the mistake of the left! Do not ever think about ways to appease. That is so wrong! With that bullshit thinking we end up checking old women and children at the airport! And, no. We should not spend a goddamn dime to help them. Most of those countries are filthy oil rich! Let them decide they want to be decent human beings and help each other.

 

[Dim Bulb]

The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.

The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.

Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.

Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.

That's ALWAYS the mistake of the left! Do not ever think about ways to appease. That is so wrong! With that bullshit thinking we end up checking old women and children at the airport! And, no. We should not spend a goddamn dime to help them. Most of those countries are filthy oil rich! Let them decide they want to be decent human beings and help each other.

I say we hit them where they live and keep surveillance on them here. AND I say we look for social solutions as well.

Not spend a dime to help them? Good Lord, man. We're sending all these Arab countries all kind of money anyway without forcing them to modernize their social issues.

If you think just bombing will solve things, you are doing exactly what the Islamist terrorists want you to do --- make it solely a battle of religion v. religion. Congratulations.

 

[usmbguest5318]

First of all, let me say "nice OP." It's rare that members bother to compose something original that's also coherent and cogent.

The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.

The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.

Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.

Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.

OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.

I don't know if that was OBL's goal; thus I won't go so far as declare a causal relationship between his actions and the state of discord that pervades many Westerners' hearts and minds with regard to Islam and its adherents. I agree that both Muslims and non-Muslims seem to be considerably more radical (less rational) than they have been been since, perhaps, the Crusades.

I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims.

I'd concur with you had you written "extremists" or "radicals." Indeed, I'd have ticked "agree" on your OP but for that one word. That someone merely is Muslim is not problematic. That one harbors hatred toward non-Muslims and is willing to act violently as a result is the problem. I have plenty of tolerance for Muslims and the Islamic faith system. I have zero tolerance for manifestations of violence as a means to foment outcomes that one cannot (or thinks one cannot) achieve via the political processes wherever one finds oneself, regardless of the theistic belief system to which one adheres. IRA, ETA, ISIS, etc., they're all the same to me: violent extremists.

Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.

To the extent that the emboldened text reflects accurately the nature your acquiescence to limits on one of what is surely among the very few "God given" freedoms bestowed on all mobile creatures, I agree with you.

Aside:

I don't recall Bentham as being the originator of the rather famous phrasing you noted, though the principle of it is unquestionably found in Bentham's discussion of utilitarianism in The Principles of Morals and Legislation. In that text, Bentham declared that the correct moral principle “approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question,” and he had understood “happiness” in terms of those “sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.”

The earliest phrasing that I know of and that resembles the adage as you've paraphrased it is from the late 1800s by a dude whose name escapes me, but that I could probably choose were I given a list of options.

I'm sorry I don't recall more than that. That bit of minutia is something I can recall having come across in my readings, of all things, about the history of prohibition (one of the many things I had to research and write a paper about in my History of American Economics class, but that was some 40 odd years ago, so I'm not surprised I don't recall the detail any better than I do), and while the concept obviously struck me as germane, the guy who offered the noted phrasing and precisely when didn't. It thus didn't register as something I'd someday have use for knowing. I just don't think I would have forgotten were it Bentham. (FWIW, I performed a cursory check to find a Bentham work in which he offered the saying you note -- because everything Bentham said/wrote predated the late 1800s. I couldn't find any.)

Who knows, however? Last weekend I found myself playing charades for the first in "God knows how long." Perhaps I'll find myself in a shortly upcoming weekend playing Trivial Pursuit and wish I did know who said it? LOL
​

Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here.

"Pressure" probably won't have much of a positive impact. Helping them, including as you note with monetary support for a variety of initiatives, more likely will.

 

[WillowTree]

The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.

The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.

Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.

Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.

That's ALWAYS the mistake of the left! Do not ever think about ways to appease. That is so wrong! With that bullshit thinking we end up checking old women and children at the airport! And, no. We should not spend a goddamn dime to help them. Most of those countries are filthy oil rich! Let them decide they want to be decent human beings and help each other.

I say we hit them where they live and keep surveillance on them here. AND I say we look for social solutions as well.

Not spend a dime to help them? Good Lord, man. We're sending all these Arab countries all kind of money anyway without forcing them to modernize their social issues.

If you think just bombing will solve things, you are doing exactly what the Islamist terrorists want you to do --- make it solely a battle of religion v. religion. Congratulations.

Do not give a fuck what Islamist terrorist think, that's your mistake not mine!

 

[WillowTree]

You would know what obama bin laden was thinking had ewe listened. After he pussy whipped Bill Clinton, post Mogadishu (remember? We are over there helping starving Muslims) any way after that he called the US a paper tiger! That's what libtards are, paper tigers! Nope! I am afraid you are going to have to do to them the same thing they want to do to us and the Israelis. Annihiliate them!

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

There's no dilemma. There's just two groups; Muslims and everyone else.

 

[usmbguest5318]

remember? We are over there helping starving Muslims

What I remember is that the U.S., in 1992 under George W. Bush, participated in the U.N. relief effort to help hungry, homeless and helpless Somalian civilians who'd become that way as a result of a civil war that began in 1991, resulting in material devastation to Somalia's agricultural industry. To the best of my recollection, the effort was to provide aid to "starving" Somalians, regardless of their religious affiliation. But by all means, if you can show some credible evidence that our reason for being there was to aid Muslims expressly, rather than everyone there who needed our assistance, I'll gladly cede the point.