Act of War

[Iceweasel]

Who started things? When you have almost continual warfare over the whole of the world at this time.

Also, showing "who started it" from an ancient perspective is futile. Christianity AND Islam were the most aggressive of killers out there at this time. Christians were travelling the whole way across Europe to go and fight in the name of God, to fight others who were fighting in the name of God.

Religion hey? Sucks balls.

Almost all armed conflicts involve Muslims these days. Christians were reclaiming land taken by Muslims but it's been a 1,000 years since the Crusades. You have no sense of proportion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

...But the extermination would be the end of western civilization, as it would destroy western civilization, the west would become something else. Perhaps it is already something else. Living in a world where it is always right and others are always wrong and unable to see its own faults.

Extermination in this context involves defeating ISIS on the battlefield and then hunting down and slaughtering the survivors.

It does not involve something that poses an existential risk to Western Civilization.

As to your 'living in a world' observation...

You do not understand the nature of the enemy and the challenge it presents nor the extent to which it cannot be reasoned with...

Consequently, you do not understand the need for extermination-caliber action.

And the consequences of "liberating" Iraq and "giving them democracy" with them welcoming US troops as saviors from Saddam were almost totally positive.

It didn't pose any threat to the west. There would not be bombs in London, Paris, Madrid. No sir.

Is it the enemy you need to be understanding? Or the people who would become the enemy if you take actions that are wrong?

And they were such a peaceful people before? Middle East expert, are you?

Who's talking about whether people are peaceful? An American. Oh, the irony.

I didn't say they were peaceful before, did I?

However Islamic terrorism has increased MASSIVELY since the Iraq War in 2003.

You think this is just a coincidence?

 

[NightFox]

Extermination in this context involves defeating ISIS on the battlefield and then hunting down and slaughtering the survivors.

Except for the fact that ISIS won't fight that way, this is an asymmetrical conflict so they're not going to engage the West in large pitched battles since they're well aware they cannot hope to defeat the West by force of arms. This isn't a contest of arms, it's a contest for the hearts and minds of the bulk of Sunni Islam, we put boots on the ground and start inadvertently slaughtering innocent people ("collateral damage" in military parlance) and we're doing exactly what they want. That is the objective for the attacks on civilian targets, to provoke the West into doing what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The only way to win this conflict is for it to be framed as a war within Sunni Islam (as opposed to what ISIS wants to frame it as, namely the West vs. Islam), whereby the fight is carried to the radicals by other Sunnis, the West can and must provide support for this but we cannot be the ones to do the fighting, we've already tried the Rambo strategy and it has led us into the mess that we're currently in.

"Every Muslim must rise to defend his religion. The wind of faith is blowing." -- Osama Bin Laden

 

[frigidweirdo]

The major problem with conservatives is they are delusional.

As this post so accurately proves.

The main problem with Liberals is that they tend to ignore the facts...
Islam and Europe Timeline (355-1291 A.D.)
View attachment 54784

What facts, exactly, are liberals supposedly ignoring?

The fact that the Crusades didn't start the warfare...

The Muslim conquest of large parts of Europe did...

Just look at the time line I posted, and we'll see if you can figure it out, with your Liberal education and single-digit IQ...

Who started things? When you have almost continual warfare over the whole of the world at this time.

Also, showing "who started it" from an ancient perspective is futile. Christianity AND Islam were the most aggressive of killers out there at this time. Christians were travelling the whole way across Europe to go and fight in the name of God, to fight others who were fighting in the name of God.

Religion hey? Sucks balls.

No, they threw the Muslims out of Europe and chased them all the way home...

And then didn't quit chasing them until they cried "uncle" and left us the **** alone for 400-500 years...

Looks like it's time to teach the sand ni99 ers another lesson they won't forget...

Right, they were out of Europe.... er.... er..... do you know European history? Doesn't sound like it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Who started things? When you have almost continual warfare over the whole of the world at this time.

Also, showing "who started it" from an ancient perspective is futile. Christianity AND Islam were the most aggressive of killers out there at this time. Christians were travelling the whole way across Europe to go and fight in the name of God, to fight others who were fighting in the name of God.

Religion hey? Sucks balls.

Almost all armed conflicts involve Muslims these days. Christians were reclaiming land taken by Muslims but it's been a 1,000 years since the Crusades. You have no sense of proportion.

Doesn't mean Muslims started them.

Maybe it's that Muslims don't like to be fucked with.

Tibetans in China, now, they set themselves on fire. Muslims on the other take their fight to the streets, Kunming train station, for example.

The very same mentality that sees Americans say that their guns will be taken from their cold dead hands.

In the US it's seen as good (by the right), but those same people see the same attitude as bad when they people are on the other team.

What a surprise.

 

[Kondor3]

...And the consequences of "liberating" Iraq and "giving them democracy" with them welcoming US troops as saviors from Saddam were almost totally positive...

Iraq was a pointless and unnecessary exercise and did not end well.

...It didn't pose any threat to the west. There would not be bombs in London, Paris, Madrid. No sir....

Indeed, Iraq did not pose any threat to the West.

And, indeed, there would not have been any bombs in London, Paris, or Madrid, at this juncture in time.

But, given the re-awakening of Militant Islam, which has been underway since the Europeans dissolved their Empires in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s...

If the bombs did not come now, they would have come soon enough, regardless...

If not Event A, triggering the bombs, it would have been Event B, soon enough, as history measures time...

It's probably just as well, that this unfolded in our present age, rather than decades later, after the realms of Militant Islam had had a chance to turn themselves into an overwhelming force which The West could not handle...

...Is it the enemy you need to be understanding?...

The West understands all too well, the nature of this Warrior Religion (Islam) and the Neanderthal state of its Militants.

...Or the people who would become the enemy if you take actions that are wrong?

It is far too late for such distinctions.

Militant Islam has re-awakened.

Those people are already in an Enemy mindset.

We now need to deal with the Reality that is, not what might have been.

 

[eagle1462010]

The main problem with Liberals is that they tend to ignore the facts...
Islam and Europe Timeline (355-1291 A.D.)
View attachment 54784

What facts, exactly, are liberals supposedly ignoring?

The fact that the Crusades didn't start the warfare...

The Muslim conquest of large parts of Europe did...

Just look at the time line I posted, and we'll see if you can figure it out, with your Liberal education and single-digit IQ...

Who started things? When you have almost continual warfare over the whole of the world at this time.

Also, showing "who started it" from an ancient perspective is futile. Christianity AND Islam were the most aggressive of killers out there at this time. Christians were travelling the whole way across Europe to go and fight in the name of God, to fight others who were fighting in the name of God.

Religion hey? Sucks balls.

No, they threw the Muslims out of Europe and chased them all the way home...

And then didn't quit chasing them until they cried "uncle" and left us the **** alone for 400-500 years...

Looks like it's time to teach the sand ni99 ers another lesson they won't forget...

Right, they were out of Europe.... er.... er..... do you know European history? Doesn't sound like it.

Karl the hammer. 732

 

[Obiwan]

The main problem with Liberals is that they tend to ignore the facts...
Islam and Europe Timeline (355-1291 A.D.)
View attachment 54784

What facts, exactly, are liberals supposedly ignoring?

The fact that the Crusades didn't start the warfare...

The Muslim conquest of large parts of Europe did...

Just look at the time line I posted, and we'll see if you can figure it out, with your Liberal education and single-digit IQ...

Who started things? When you have almost continual warfare over the whole of the world at this time.

Also, showing "who started it" from an ancient perspective is futile. Christianity AND Islam were the most aggressive of killers out there at this time. Christians were travelling the whole way across Europe to go and fight in the name of God, to fight others who were fighting in the name of God.

Religion hey? Sucks balls.

No, they threw the Muslims out of Europe and chased them all the way home...

And then didn't quit chasing them until they cried "uncle" and left us the **** alone for 400-500 years...

Looks like it's time to teach the sand ni99 ers another lesson they won't forget...

Right, they were out of Europe.... er.... er..... do you know European history? Doesn't sound like it.

Do you have a brain???

When you're at war, you BREAK your enemies where they can't come back...

 

[Rustic]

Who started things? When you have almost continual warfare over the whole of the world at this time.

Also, showing "who started it" from an ancient perspective is futile. Christianity AND Islam were the most aggressive of killers out there at this time. Christians were travelling the whole way across Europe to go and fight in the name of God, to fight others who were fighting in the name of God.

Religion hey? Sucks balls.

Almost all armed conflicts involve Muslims these days. Christians were reclaiming land taken by Muslims but it's been a 1,000 years since the Crusades. You have no sense of proportion.

You mean catholic crusades, of course??

Christian and Catholic you do know there is a big difference??

 

[dblack]

French President Calls Attacks an 'Act of War'


The French president calls attacks in Paris an 'Act of War'.

That is what it is. Nato needs to mobilize immediately and neutralize this threat with all due hostility. We aren't at terrorism, we are at war. The ENEMY has made it clear.

Nato should convene, tell the member states we need a quarter million troops and all will participate and land troops in Iraq and Syria FOR STARTERS. And it should make clear to the rest of the world get the **** out of the way.

The real world is harsh and sometimes deadly force is required and right now is one of those times. And be clear, Nato will have forces in that region for decades to come.

The Nato charter states 'any attack on one member nation is an attack on all'. The time for half measures and yammering is now over, for good. Brutal force is now required, not by our choice but by what has been forced on us.

Here we go again...

It's really unfortunate that dealing with terrorism isn't as simple as fighting a war. We're good at those. If eliminating terrorism were matter of applying our military supremacy, it would be over in a matter of weeks. But terrorism is a much thornier problem than that. Terrorists prey on the limits of military superiority, and attempt to trigger our undoing by goading us into an imaginary, and quite un-winnable, "war". We need leaders who won't fall for it.

 

[dblack]

Fundamentalist Islam, as a modern military power, has the potential to be the most dangerous threat to Western Civilization in a thousand years.

"Hearts and minds" will not work.

That leaves extermination, as the only effective means of dealing with this so-called Caliphate.

Not defeat.

Extermination.

By whatever means necessary.

And, as the French President has said, "Without pity".

I wish it were different.

But it is not.

Now, we need to be about that business of extermination.

Without pity... without mercy... no prisoners.

Then you must agree that we start by cutting out the beasts heart. Start the bombing campaign in the KSA. Yes?

First things first.

Kill the Caliphate.

You gotta find 'em first.

 

[Kondor3]

...Except for the fact that ISIS won't fight that way, this is an asymmetrical conflict...

Don't look now, but even though this started out as an asymmetrical struggle, it has evolved into a far more conventional one, as a struggle for territory.

...The only way to win this conflict is for it to be framed as a war within Sunni Islam...

Muslims tend to drift towards and concede their liberties to strongmen and fundamentalists, which is the category that ISIS falls under, besides holding out the romantic imagery of re-invigorating Islam and recapturing the lost glories of former times.

If we leave the Sunnis to their own devices, ISIS will win, and we cannot allow that to happen. Catch-22.

...we've already tried the Rambo strategy and it has led us into the mess that we're currently in...

Nothing wrong with the Rambo Strategy... IF we simply slaughter the Opposition without mercy nor prisoners...

And IF we simply walk away afterwards, without trying to nation-build again, as we mistakenly tried with such, earlier.

This time, we leave 'em to wander the smoldering ruins, naked and bleeding.

Phukk 'em.

..."Every Muslim must rise to defend his religion. The wind of faith is blowing." -- Osama Bin Laden

Yes.

Which is why The West needs to make it impossible for Militant Islam to continue to threaten it. Not inadvisable. Not impractical. Impossible. That means exterminating ISIS.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The time for yammer yammering has ended, this cancer has to be eradicated from the body of humanity. There are times for massive brutal warfare and this is one of those times.

You people who whine 'why don't you go', just go hide in your basement. And being a veteran doesn't give you magical powers to tell anyone else what to do, or say no one should talk about using the military unless they go themselves. Then stop talking about the President nonstop, about the police, and every other subject where you don't have personal experience. It is a lazy and lame argument. We the People DO tell our military where to go and what to do. YOU don't want to go, then don't. Stop whining about everyone else.

After IsiL and the other losers are defeated Iraq should be broken up into three countries. One Shiite, one Sunni, and one Kurd in the north. Otherwise and probably even then these people are going to be fighting until the end of time, like Israel and Palestine.

There are NO simple fuzzy solutions to anything over there. NONE. We do the best we can.

But the threat to the West is real and has to be dealt with. If you disagree then tell us, how many of these slaughters of unarmed innocents should we accept before we do go?

Infinite? Thank you Neville Chamberlain.

 

[paulitician]

Maybe the West should rethink it's constant meddling and illegal 'Regime Change' policy? The West, especially the U.S., have set he Middle East on fire. They've been destabilizing the region for many years. Now they want to bomb & kill some more? I mean, how many countries are the West/U.S. currently bombing & killing in? No one really knows anymore. It's so many, we've lost count.

The U.S./West have become so arrogant, they truly believe there won't be any bloody repercussions. But guess what? Many will seek revenge. Chickens will come home to roost eventually. The War will hit home. It's inevitable.

 

[eagle1462010]

Enough talk.............time to end this mess and kill them.............

 

[Kondor3]

...You gotta find 'em first.

They now hold broad tracts of territory. Finding them no longer presents the problem it once did. Conditions have changed. Try to keep up.

 

[eagle1462010]

History of Jihad against France (732 - ongoing)


The Franks

Today, we might not realize the significance of the victory of the Franks (Ferrenghis – as the Muslims called them) over the Arabs, a few miles south of Paris in 732. Had it not been for this victory, the whole of Europe might have been Muslim today, and the history of Europe and perhaps that of the entire world would have been far more bloodied and darker as is that of the Middle East today.

History repeats itself..........Will Karl the hammer come out of the attacks.................

 

[Iceweasel]

Who started things? When you have almost continual warfare over the whole of the world at this time.

Also, showing "who started it" from an ancient perspective is futile. Christianity AND Islam were the most aggressive of killers out there at this time. Christians were travelling the whole way across Europe to go and fight in the name of God, to fight others who were fighting in the name of God.

Religion hey? Sucks balls.

Almost all armed conflicts involve Muslims these days. Christians were reclaiming land taken by Muslims but it's been a 1,000 years since the Crusades. You have no sense of proportion.

You mean catholic crusades, of course??

Christian and Catholic you do know there is a big difference??

Oh please. They weren't Christians?

 

[Iceweasel]

Militant Islam has re-awakened.

When exactly did it go to sleep?

 

[dblack]

Enough talk.............time to end this mess and kill them.............

They're already dead.