Attack at Bangladesh cafe popular with foreigners

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about being nervous for everything? Marathon? Workplace? Gay nightclub? Airport transit? Foreign business? Police couple in front of child at home? How about this administration get back in the business of a war on terror?

ISIS's strategy is to make people be nervous for everything. Conservatives' strategy is the same. It is exceedingly strange that this poster believes that an attack in Bengladesh could have been stopped by Obama.

You don't ever allow the war to come to your soil

I hope it never does, but that's precisely what needs to happen to get people to understand where the hatred comes from. Americans never experienced the terror and destruction at home that they have unleashed on other countries, which is why they cannot understand the mindset of those who have been on the receiving end of brutal and vicious American military aggression.

I'm pretty sure we experience terror and destruction at home in 9/11, Boston Marathon, etc.

As to brutal and vicious American military aggression---like the one that saved the Muslims in Bosnia? Like the Afghans clamoring for us to stay and help them fight the Taliban so they don't have executions in soccer stadiums again? ? Like the Iraqis inviting us back in for air support and advisement?

Operation Enduring Freedom, Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin......

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about being nervous for everything? Marathon? Workplace? Gay nightclub? Airport transit? Foreign business? Police couple in front of child at home? How about this administration get back in the business of a war on terror?

ISIS's strategy is to make people be nervous for everything. Conservatives' strategy is the same. It is exceedingly strange that this poster believes that an attack in Bengladesh could have been stopped by Obama.

This administrations articulated vision of defeating world wide terror - whether here or in Bangladesh - is to fight it with peace, love and understanding, drone or air strikes (more than Bush) , and a few troops in Iraq/Syria that it wont acknowledge as being in combat. It seems completely incoherent to me.

Do you know what sounds incoherent to me? Someone blaming Obama for an attack in Bangladesh. The layers of ignorance required to arrive at such a conclusion are simply astounding.

It is really remarkable to consider what brain functions are required to read about an attack in Bangladesh and then immediately leap to blaming Obama. Let's hope that nobody's July 4th cookouts get rained on -- Obama will be blamed for that as well.

Can you explain why Bangladesh, where we have huge garment trade, where bloggers trying to speak freely and stabbed to death in the street, with its location as another potential place for an extremist group to take root, does not "matter"? Do you just see it as third world flood ridden back water where this is par for the course? In the fight against pernicious and destabilizing terror, we can at least name and track the threat and have a coordinated plan to push back against it--whether in South Asia or in North Africa. Do you wait until the countries are wracked by Civil War (Syria, Yemen) to pay attention? Our own general acknowledged to Congress that he is aware of no overarching plan to deal with extremism in North Africa. Not to have a plan? Sad.

Can you please show where I said that Bangladesh "does not 'matter'"? You put "matter" in quotes so obviously I must have said, but where? Or, maybe you are simply delusional?

Again, the ignorance of your posts is astounding. Do you really believe that the US should have an "overarching plan to deal with extremism in North Africa"? Can you also see Russia from your house? Because North Africa consists of a number of countries that are home to various types of extremism. The US military is currently deployed in the majority of North African countries. You need individual plans for each of those deployments and additional plans for addressing various threats. The idea that you can develop one single plan is the hight of idiocy such as is so often demonstrated by those who have no idea of the complexity of the world. It is people like you who lead us to invade Iraq because of an attack launched from Germany, mainly carried out by Saudis, led by a group based in Afghanistan, while repeatedly telling us Iran is the real threat. Your plan is literally to bomb them all and let God sort them out. That's as nuanced as you are capable of thinking.

As for extremism in Bangladesh, that is for the government of Bangladesh to sort out. The US has its hands full just trying to look after itself.

Yes, I do think we should have an overarching plan. We have military around the world actively fighting Isis- including in Iraq, Syria, and "africom" - we should have a plan that deploys not just military, but dept. Of state, Cia etc. This administrations vocalized plan has been to call Isis a JV organization. His only military plan (not mine) is to bomb them. Its completely incoherent. Hows it working out?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about being nervous for everything? Marathon? Workplace? Gay nightclub? Airport transit? Foreign business? Police couple in front of child at home? How about this administration get back in the business of a war on terror?

ISIS's strategy is to make people be nervous for everything. Conservatives' strategy is the same. It is exceedingly strange that this poster believes that an attack in Bengladesh could have been stopped by Obama.

This administrations articulated vision of defeating world wide terror - whether here or in Bangladesh - is to fight it with peace, love and understanding, drone or air strikes (more than Bush) , and a few troops in Iraq/Syria that it wont acknowledge as being in combat. It seems completely incoherent to me.

Do you know what sounds incoherent to me? Someone blaming Obama for an attack in Bangladesh. The layers of ignorance required to arrive at such a conclusion are simply astounding.

It is really remarkable to consider what brain functions are required to read about an attack in Bangladesh and then immediately leap to blaming Obama. Let's hope that nobody's July 4th cookouts get rained on -- Obama will be blamed for that as well.

Can you explain why Bangladesh, where we have huge garment trade, where bloggers trying to speak freely and stabbed to death in the street, with its location as another potential place for an extremist group to take root, does not "matter"? Do you just see it as third world flood ridden back water where this is par for the course? In the fight against pernicious and destabilizing terror, we can at least name and track the threat and have a coordinated plan to push back against it--whether in South Asia or in North Africa. Do you wait until the countries are wracked by Civil War (Syria, Yemen) to pay attention? Our own general acknowledged to Congress that he is aware of no overarching plan to deal with extremism in North Africa. Not to have a plan? Sad.

Can you please show where I said that Bangladesh "does not 'matter'"? You put "matter" in quotes so obviously I must have said, but where? Or, maybe you are simply delusional?

Again, the ignorance of your posts is astounding. Do you really believe that the US should have an "overarching plan to deal with extremism in North Africa"? Can you also see Russia from your house? Because North Africa consists of a number of countries that are home to various types of extremism. The US military is currently deployed in the majority of North African countries. You need individual plans for each of those deployments and additional plans for addressing various threats. The idea that you can develop one single plan is the hight of idiocy such as is so often demonstrated by those who have no idea of the complexity of the world. It is people like you who lead us to invade Iraq because of an attack launched from Germany, mainly carried out by Saudis, led by a group based in Afghanistan, while repeatedly telling us Iran is the real threat. Your plan is literally to bomb them all and let God sort them out. That's as nuanced as you are capable of thinking.

As for extremism in Bangladesh, that is for the government of Bangladesh to sort out. The US has its hands full just trying to look after itself.

Yes, I do think we should have an overarching plan. We have military around the world actively fighting Isis- including in Iraq, Syria, and "africom" - we should have a plan that deploys not just military, but dept. Of state, Cia etc. This administrations vocalized plan has been to call Isis a JV organization. His only military plan (not mine) is to bomb them. Its completely incoherent. Hows it working out?

You are purposefully misrepresenting the administration's plans. Normally, lying is chosen as a preferred tactic when the truth is unhelpful. So, we can draw our own conclusions about the soundness of your position from that. ISIS, like the countries of North Africa, is quite a bit more complex than you seem to understand. You would do well to spend some of your energy reading and learning rather than criticizing something about which you know so little. Also, nice movement of the goal posts from "extremism" to "ISIS". But, to the point, the US has a plan for combatting ISIS in Libya. It is not a plan that I support, but it is a plan. Do you know what it is? The US is doing far more than "bombing" ISIS in Iraq. Those actions are not necessarily ones that I support, but do you know what they are? The US has a plan for combatting ISIS in Syria that goes well beyond "bombing". It is a plan which I have no hesitancy in opposing, but it is a plan. Do you know anything about it?

The Obama administration has more sophisticated plans than you seem to be aware. If you understand the ideological framework leading to those plans, they are even somewhat coherent. If, like me, you do not adhere to that ideological framework, the plans necessarily are faulty. Of course, it is like that any currently realistic alternatives to the Obama administration would have even worse plans from my point of view. So, I should probably take what I can get. You, on the other hand, should not spout misinformation.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for setting me straight. However, I'll trust the general who says he knows of no plan on this one. I believe this administrations strategy was withdrawal - hoping that would lead to lessened hostility. I believe they offered friendship to the Muslim world (as did Bush) - hoping for same..i believe that minimizing the Isis threat was an interesting technique, to deny them credibility. I believe opening arms to refugees is more friendship. Unfortunately, I just don't think from Bangadesh to san Bernardino this has worked. Time for something even more sophisticated from this sophisticated president. Keep the friendship part, but fight those who will have truck with it.
Btw - you and I simply disagree. Educating myself is a worthy endeavor and I will continue to do so, as I'm sure you will as well. But I'm guessing I'll draw different conclusions.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for setting me straight. However, I'll trust the general who says he knows of no plan on this one. I believe this administrations strategy was withdrawal - hoping that would lead to lessened hostility. I believe they offered friendship to the Muslim world (as did Bush) - hoping for same..i believe that minimizing the Isis threat was an interesting technique, to deny them credibility. I believe opening arms to refugees is more friendship. Unfortunately, I just don't think from Bangadesh to san Bernardino this has worked. Time for something even more sophisticated from this sophisticated president. Keep the friendship part, but fight those who will have truck with it.
Btw - you and I simply disagree. Educating myself is a worthy endeavor and I will continue to do so, as I'm sure you will as well. But I'm guessing I'll draw different conclusions.

Why are you lying? You know that is not what the General said. You are purposefully misrepresenting his words. You have a lot of beliefs. Sadly, those beliefs are not founded on reality. You might well believe that the moon is made of blue cheese, but that doesn't make it so.

[Anonymous]

Sad. Another attack with the attackers once again yelling allahu akbar. That sounds pretty religious to me.

[Anonymous]

I'm lying?. I may interpret Obama's foreign policy with regard to the war on terror differently than you, but I'm hardly lying.
.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/gen-mattis-has-sharp-words-for-obama-foreign-policy/

n short, Mattis said at one point, a lot of U.S. allies are unhappy with Obama’s aimless foreign policy stances.

“We’ve disappointed a lot of friends out there, from Tel Aviv to Riyadh to Abu Dhabi to Cairo,” he said.

Mattis headed the U.S. Central Command from 2010 to 2013 and led the First Marine Division into Iraq in 2003.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'm lying?. I may interpret Obama's foreign policy with regard to the war on terror differently than you, but I'm hardly lying.
.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/gen-mattis-has-sharp-words-for-obama-foreign-policy/

n short, Mattis said at one point, a lot of U.S. allies are unhappy with Obama’s aimless foreign policy stances.

“We’ve disappointed a lot of friends out there, from Tel Aviv to Riyadh to Abu Dhabi to Cairo,” he said.

Mattis headed the U.S. Central Command from 2010 to 2013 and led the First Marine Division into Iraq in 2003.

Here is what you have claimed the general said (by the way, the "general" is retired so it is not surprising he has not been briefed on current plans):

"he is aware of no overarching plan to deal with extremism in North Africa"

"says he knows of no plan on this one" -- this was in the context of a discussion of a policy to defeat ISIS.

So, unless you can clarify the source of the quotes that you provided, I'm going to assume that you were not truthful in your earlier posts. The article does say the general is not aware of our policy in Syria, but that just demonstrates that he is uninformed rather than support either of the two quotes you posted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm lying?. I may interpret Obama's foreign policy with regard to the war on terror differently than you, but I'm hardly lying.
.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/gen-mattis-has-sharp-words-for-obama-foreign-policy/

n short, Mattis said at one point, a lot of U.S. allies are unhappy with Obama’s aimless foreign policy stances.

“We’ve disappointed a lot of friends out there, from Tel Aviv to Riyadh to Abu Dhabi to Cairo,” he said.

Mattis headed the U.S. Central Command from 2010 to 2013 and led the First Marine Division into Iraq in 2003.

You mean the countries who want us to do their fighting for them.

[Anonymous]

This is a quote from a news article. The assailants asked them to recite the Quran and if they could they were spared. A Hindu priest was also attacked yesterday in Bangladesh and killed.

The commons denominator in all of these terrorist attacks whether him the US, Turkey, Africa, and now Bangladesh ia that the assailants are Muslims and they themselves are saying they are killing in the name of Islam.

"One hostage who was rescued told his father the attackers didn’t kill anyone who could recite verses from the Quran. "The gunmen asked everyone inside to recite from the Quran. Those who recited were spared. The gunmen even gave them meals last night," the father of a Bangladeshi businessman who was rescued told the Associated Press."

[Anonymous]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/21/politics/general-no-strategy-isis-libya/index.html

This is the general I'm referring to. Retired generals like Mattis have been pointing out this administrations lack of strategy in various theaters. What's remarkable is now active duty ones are as well (this one referencing Libya).

You know what's funny? Given the current state of our military (harvesting plane parts from the boneyard) and lack of strategy, I'm with the far left on non interventionism . You know who else is? Donald Trump. Its funny when the left and the right agree. But I can only support interventionism when our military and diplomats have something coherent to guide them.

[Anonymous]

And I should not have said far left and far right agreeing, as Trump is just "far crazy", but he is a non interventionist which makes it all fascinating.
#draftRomney

[Anonymous]

Three young American students were among those killed.

[Anonymous]

Democratic leadership has failed.

[Anonymous]

Two of those students went to school with my daughter. They could not recite the Koran so they were tortured and killed. My DD is already awake. She thought it ridiculous re: the Trump support and the students' reactions I hope more students wake up now and understand Trump isn't the enemy we are fighting. RIP, kids - some of us are strong enough to fight back for you