Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • KoHeartsGPA

    2561

  • datzenmike

    2330

  • Draker

    2054

  • a.d._510_n_ok

    2012

Top Posters In This Topic

How's asking a question of witch the answer is already known, critical thinking?

 

 

I'm intrigued.

I do expect that you are being phasitious but I'm a sucker...

 

Question:

"How can we win this [ideological war] if we don't address it ideologically?"

 

This is the question right? And your answer is to kill jihadists. Right?

 

Would you agree that we have a larger enemy now, than we did in 2001? Typically, in war, when a strategy proves ineffective, different strategies are considered. Thus far, every act of aggression has resulted in a growing enemy, so I suppose I see an opportunity to re-consider our approach. So I suppose we don't all see the same answer.

Link to comment

If two combatants were both Christian maybe you could, even is both agreed to peacefully disagree. Islam is basically at war with anything non Islamic. Christians used to be this way even 500 years ago maybe less but it has grown out of that for the most part. The sharp edges have been worn off. The ten commandments are more of a rough guide really. Islam needs a few centuries to 'lighten up'.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment

I do expect that you are being phasitious but I'm a sucker...

Question:

"How can we win this [ideological war] if we don't address it ideologically?"

This is the question right? And your answer is to kill jihadists. Right?

Would you agree that we have a larger enemy now, than we did in 2001? Typically, in war, when a strategy proves ineffective, different strategies are considered. Thus far, every act of aggression has resulted in a growing enemy, so I suppose I see an opportunity to re-consider our approach. So I suppose we don't all see the same answer.

You failed to answer my question, instead you asked one in witch Mike answered ever so smoothly (thanks, Mike)

 

And when you're dealing with people whom are willing to die killing anyone who is considered an infidel....yes the answer is clear, kill them.....cuz they will kill you when they get the chance to.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

this is an asymetric war. You often hear politicians to carpet bomb them. This is unrealistic and they are just tugging at your heartstring. There is no battle lines unlike when we invaded Iraq or during ww2 or the Korean war. All you have to do is google Philippines and moro war. The Spanish, Americans, Japanese and Pilipinod tried to defeat them and today after like 200 years or so the Pilipinos have been at war with the moros or " radicalized" Muslims in Midanao. This " terrorism" have been going on for many years, its just hitting at home now. Even in Europe, the Moors, which what they called them went all the way to Spain. So there is no military solution. Im afraid to tell you guys this but this is the way its going to be for a long time and im certain there will be no peace in my life time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

You failed to answer my question, instead you asked one in witch Mike answered ever so smoothly (thanks, Mike)

 

And when you're dealing with people whom are willing to die killing anyone who is considered an infidel....yes the answer is clear, kill them.....cuz they will kill you when they get the chance to.

Your conjecture, prefacing the question was flawed. We don't all know the answer. How can I answer a question predicated on a flawed conjecture? No can. It is critical thinking, because the answer is unknown.

Link to comment

And when you're dealing with people whom are willing to die killing anyone who is considered an infidel....yes the answer is clear, kill them.....cuz they will kill you when they get the chance to.

 

Just ask the Russians how that worked out for them in the 20 years they tried to take and keep Afghanistan.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

Link to comment

If two combatants were both Christian maybe you could, even is both agreed to peacefully disagree. Islam is basically at war with anything non Islamic. Christians used to be this way even 500 years ago maybe less but it has grown out of that for the most part. The sharp edges have been worn off. The ten commandments are more of a rough guide really. Islam needs a few centuries to 'lighten up'.   

In the hands of humans, religion is a dangerous thing.

Link to comment

Just ask the Russians how that worked out for them in the 20 years they tried to take and keep Afghanistan.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

It the spetsnaz couldn't do it then I don't think we can, they would fire a warning shot, if you didn't respond they mowed you down. They were a lot less diplomatic than we are.

Link to comment

To be clear I was talking about extreme religion. Most people are content to practice their belief quietly while all around them are at odds with them. This is why it's said that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and they probably are. It's just easier to be to get along. I'm sure the Bible says some radical shit in it that could be taken and acted on and considered extremist too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Read these conservative paper's criticism of Donald Trump bellow and you'll understand my dilemma. I've had a knot in my stomach this election season because both candidates are so flawed, and unworthy of the office. It might be easier if it was a clear choice between the lesser of two evils, but there is no comfort there either. It's just BAD.

 

My Father, who is a strong Conservative/Libertarian told me he will not be voting this season for the first time in his life. He can see Trump is not fit to run this country, but would NEVER vote for Hillary. He sent me these editorials.

 

My anti establishment position when it comes to our corrupt top heavy government should drive me into Trump's camp, but for me, that buffoon comes nowhere near my expectations of a worthy alternative. I can totally get behind bashing the shit out of these anal wart candidates, but for the life of me I can't understand why ANYONE would "choose" one with enthusiasm; including these "conservative" papers

 

Please, don't bother responding to this if you haven't read these editorials as a frame of reference.

 

The 'Arizona Republic' is breaking GOP streak of 126 years to endorse Clinton.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/09/27/hillary-clinton-endorsement/91198668/

 

The Cincinnati Enquirer has supported Republicans for president for almost a century endorse Clinton.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/09/23/enquirer-endorses-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/90728344/

 

This election was the first time The Dallas Morning News had recommended a Democrat for president since before World War II.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2016/09/07/recommend-hillary-clinton-us-president

 

Houston Chronicle Editorial Board also endorsed Hillary Clinton

http://www.chron.com/opinion/recommendations/article/For-Hillary-Clinton-8650345.php

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.