Attack at Bangladesh cafe popular with foreigners

[Anonymous]

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.

They need to do what they did in WWII. Saturation bombing. We worry so much about killing their civilians while ours are getting picked off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one said that ISIS doesn't kill Muslims.

This thread is about the Bangladesh attack.

I could be just as obtuse and instead of you asking about the religions killed by ISIS last week, how about-- last week, in ALL terrorist attacks around the world, what was the religion of the all terrorists?? What is the total of non-Muslim terrorists vs Muslim terrorist last week?

The point here is pushing back on the imams and mullahs that are spreading this hate and perverted version of religion to so many youth around the world. To the poor, to the rich, to the educated, to the uneducated. It's not just in madrassas, its in the Friday prayers, in inside homes. (yes, I know not every single mosque/home, I'm talking about those that do) It is this ideology that is effecting normal Muslim youth.

And yes, around the world those that are kafirs and apostates get killed, also Islamists kill other Muslims. That is clear in this Bangladesh attack. Not being Muslim enough, not standing by a warped ideology, being the wrong kind of Muslim (ex. Ahmedi).

Whenever someone points out that the Islamists targeted non-Muslims. You don't need to scream- but Muslims get killed too. It's a known fact. How about condemning it and reaching out to your Hindu brothers and sisters in your community? Like the families of the college students killed. Fight against the ideology together. Not just saying, well hey Muslims get killed too.

Um, did you bother noticing that the thread above is talking about attacks OTHER than Bangladesh? Sigh. OK I will quote it back to you:

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.

If someone wants to declare a "common denominator", then they need to include all of the attacks, not just the ones that prove their point.

No, I don't read every single thread above and below the one I'm posting on before I post. And you're mad because I responded to your post in THIS thread?

2 words- Anger Management.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

They need to do what they did in WWII. Saturation bombing. We worry so much about killing their civilians while ours are getting picked off.

That is the most dense thing I've read in a while. America has killed hundreds (likely thousands) more people than any Americans that have been killed. Just because you don't see it in the news here doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There are so many drone strikes or aerial bombs that kills scores of innocent people. Of course you probably think they must have deserved it, or maybe that 10 non-American lives are equivalent to one American life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people killed by these extremists are other muslims. You cherry pick the events that involve non-muslims to prove your point.


200 people were killed by ISIS in Baghdad this weekend. Is there a thread on it? No. Is anyone talking about their religious background? No. What is the total of Muslim vs. non-muslims killed by ISIS this week?

Your point is to say it isn't about Islam. You are incorrect

Sorry but this is not about theological differences between shiites and sunnis. Thats as stupid as saying that the conflict in Northern Ireland is about Christianity.

Islam keeps proving itself to be violent. From molestations of children to rapes and murders of young women to bombings to attacking and killing of homosexuals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure Trump will take the war to the enemy PP. He seems to be an isolationist. I would anticipate full withdrawal and heightened security at home and for US interests abroad. Very pinpoint aggression if/when terrorists ventured forth. Very little aid as these places imploded - probably no fly refugee zones. Is this better than fighting these wars so aimlessly and at times cynically as current leadership has done?

Please discuss if you think my read of him as an isolationist is wrong. I am having a hard time getting a bead on his foreign policy and approach to the war on terror.

He is a lot better than Clinton for sure. He knows who the enemy is, and is not beholden to those that protect them

Well today he thinks the enemy is Jewish people:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-deletes-anti-clinton-corruption-ad-with-star-of-david/

He's saying SHE is an enemy to the Jewish people.

WHAT?? No, you can't spin this away. He put a picture of Clinton on top of a background of money with "Most Corrupt Politician" inside the figure of a Star of David. Not only that but the original meme came from a Nazi website.

Meaning she's on the take. It's not a slam on Jews. I'm a Jew - trust me, I know a slam. I see them on DCUM all the time.

Ok. So putting the Star of David on the photo clues us in that Clinton is "on the take." But that's not anti-Semitic at all. Okay....

The Star is about Israel. You must be anti-Semitic since you think it is about Jews and money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure Trump will take the war to the enemy PP. He seems to be an isolationist. I would anticipate full withdrawal and heightened security at home and for US interests abroad. Very pinpoint aggression if/when terrorists ventured forth. Very little aid as these places imploded - probably no fly refugee zones. Is this better than fighting these wars so aimlessly and at times cynically as current leadership has done?

Please discuss if you think my read of him as an isolationist is wrong. I am having a hard time getting a bead on his foreign policy and approach to the war on terror.

He is a lot better than Clinton for sure. He knows who the enemy is, and is not beholden to those that protect them

Well today he thinks the enemy is Jewish people:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-deletes-anti-clinton-corruption-ad-with-star-of-david/

He's saying SHE is an enemy to the Jewish people.

WHAT?? No, you can't spin this away. He put a picture of Clinton on top of a background of money with "Most Corrupt Politician" inside the figure of a Star of David. Not only that but the original meme came from a Nazi website.

Meaning she's on the take. It's not a slam on Jews. I'm a Jew - trust me, I know a slam. I see them on DCUM all the time.

Ok. So putting the Star of David on the photo clues us in that Clinton is "on the take." But that's not anti-Semitic at all. Okay....

The Star is about Israel. You must be anti-Semitic since you think it is about Jews and money.

When an antisemite puts a star of david on top of a pile of money in an ad about corruption, it is not just about Israel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is the total of the presidents strategy - 'surgical air strikes', and send in troops as advisors and claim they're not in combat. The denial.

LOL - please call your MoC and ask him or her to draft legislation authorizing for greater engagement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is the total of the presidents strategy - 'surgical air strikes', and send in troops as advisors and claim they're not in combat. The denial.

LOL - please call your MoC and ask him or her to draft legislation authorizing for greater engagement.

+1 He got elected by a public that wanted us to get out of Iraq. Some of us may have forgotten that, but I'm sure he hasn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is the total of the presidents strategy - 'surgical air strikes', and send in troops as advisors and claim they're not in combat. The denial.

LOL - please call your MoC and ask him or her to draft legislation authorizing for greater engagement.

+1 He got elected by a public that wanted us to get out of Iraq. Some of us may have forgotten that, but I'm sure he hasn't.

Then how about less engagement? This is just incoherent denial to appease you who elected him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is the total of the presidents strategy - 'surgical air strikes', and send in troops as advisors and claim they're not in combat. The denial.

LOL - please call your MoC and ask him or her to draft legislation authorizing for greater engagement.

+1 He got elected by a public that wanted us to get out of Iraq. Some of us may have forgotten that, but I'm sure he hasn't.

Then how about less engagement? This is just incoherent denial to appease you who elected him.

Promising to bring our troops home, and then doing it, is not incoherent. It is not incoherent to refuse to risk thousands of lives on foreign conflicts unless absolutely necessary. Nor does it mean that he can't drop bombs, which puts very few of our troops at risk.

Lastly, keeping our people from getting killed is not appeasement in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure Trump will take the war to the enemy PP. He seems to be an isolationist. I would anticipate full withdrawal and heightened security at home and for US interests abroad. Very pinpoint aggression if/when terrorists ventured forth. Very little aid as these places imploded - probably no fly refugee zones. Is this better than fighting these wars so aimlessly and at times cynically as current leadership has done?

Please discuss if you think my read of him as an isolationist is wrong. I am having a hard time getting a bead on his foreign policy and approach to the war on terror.

He is a lot better than Clinton for sure. He knows who the enemy is, and is not beholden to those that protect them

Well today he thinks the enemy is Jewish people:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-deletes-anti-clinton-corruption-ad-with-star-of-david/

He's saying SHE is an enemy to the Jewish people.

WHAT?? No, you can't spin this away. He put a picture of Clinton on top of a background of money with "Most Corrupt Politician" inside the figure of a Star of David. Not only that but the original meme came from a Nazi website.

Meaning she's on the take. It's not a slam on Jews. I'm a Jew - trust me, I know a slam. I see them on DCUM all the time.

Ok. So putting the Star of David on the photo clues us in that Clinton is "on the take." But that's not anti-Semitic at all. Okay....

The Star is about Israel. You must be anti-Semitic since you think it is about Jews and money.

Donald Trump now claims it is a "sheriff's star", so it's not about Israel at all! Even though the image came from a white supremacist web site.

Hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is the total of the presidents strategy - 'surgical air strikes', and send in troops as advisors and claim they're not in combat. The denial.

LOL - please call your MoC and ask him or her to draft legislation authorizing for greater engagement.

+1 He got elected by a public that wanted us to get out of Iraq. Some of us may have forgotten that, but I'm sure he hasn't.

Then how about less engagement? This is just incoherent denial to appease you who elected him.

Promising to bring our troops home, and then doing it, is not incoherent. It is not incoherent to refuse to risk thousands of lives on foreign conflicts unless absolutely necessary. Nor does it mean that he can't drop bombs, which puts very few of our troops at risk.

Lastly, keeping our people from getting killed is not appeasement in any way.

He has done this?
Odd, since my son just returned from Afghanistan, and will likely return in a few months and my son-in-law just returned to Iraq.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is the total of the presidents strategy - 'surgical air strikes', and send in troops as advisors and claim they're not in combat. The denial.

LOL - please call your MoC and ask him or her to draft legislation authorizing for greater engagement.

+1 He got elected by a public that wanted us to get out of Iraq. Some of us may have forgotten that, but I'm sure he hasn't.

Then how about less engagement? This is just incoherent denial to appease you who elected him.

Promising to bring our troops home, and then doing it, is not incoherent. It is not incoherent to refuse to risk thousands of lives on foreign conflicts unless absolutely necessary. Nor does it mean that he can't drop bombs, which puts very few of our troops at risk.

Lastly, keeping our people from getting killed is not appeasement in any way.

We are now not withdrawing from Afghanistan, so so much for that promise. After dismantling incredibly expensive infrastructure...we are still there because he realized,finally, we can't leave . Troops are back in Iraq, troops are back in Syria, he wont acknowledge they are in combat.... Incoherent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people killed by these extremists are other muslims. You cherry pick the events that involve non-muslims to prove your point.


200 people were killed by ISIS in Baghdad this weekend. Is there a thread on it? No. Is anyone talking about their religious background? No. What is the total of Muslim vs. non-muslims killed by ISIS this week?

Your point is to say it isn't about Islam. You are incorrect

Sorry but this is not about theological differences between shiites and sunnis. Thats as stupid as saying that the conflict in Northern Ireland is about Christianity.

Not the pp but of course its about islam extremism. 1 of the reasons the taliban rose was when their society started becoming accepting of open homosexuality and gay marriage between a man and his young boy dancer or bacha bazi

m.youtube.com/watch?v=j2C3JBdv520

Wait I was just admonished for not sticking to the subject of the isis attack in Bangladesh. But tthen you start talking about the Taliban now like every conflict is the same and trying to pin it on gay marriage??

I wasn't pinning it on gay marriage. I said it was 1 of the reasons the Taliban rose. Taliban after all follows their religion by the book no matter how extreme it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure Trump will take the war to the enemy PP. He seems to be an isolationist. I would anticipate full withdrawal and heightened security at home and for US interests abroad. Very pinpoint aggression if/when terrorists ventured forth. Very little aid as these places imploded - probably no fly refugee zones. Is this better than fighting these wars so aimlessly and at times cynically as current leadership has done?

Please discuss if you think my read of him as an isolationist is wrong. I am having a hard time getting a bead on his foreign policy and approach to the war on terror.

He is a lot better than Clinton for sure. He knows who the enemy is, and is not beholden to those that protect them

Well today he thinks the enemy is Jewish people:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-deletes-anti-clinton-corruption-ad-with-star-of-david/

He's saying SHE is an enemy to the Jewish people.

WHAT?? No, you can't spin this away. He put a picture of Clinton on top of a background of money with "Most Corrupt Politician" inside the figure of a Star of David. Not only that but the original meme came from a Nazi website.

Meaning she's on the take. It's not a slam on Jews. I'm a Jew - trust me, I know a slam. I see them on DCUM all the time.

Ok. So putting the Star of David on the photo clues us in that Clinton is "on the take." But that's not anti-Semitic at all. Okay....

The Star is about Israel. You must be anti-Semitic since you think it is about Jews and money.

Donald Trump now claims it is a "sheriff's star", so it's not about Israel at all! Even though the image came from a white supremacist web site.

Hilarious.

You people will do anything to find him racist, even though it's Obama who is truly anti-Jew.