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.

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?

Comparing the terror of 9/11 and the Boston bombings to what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria is absurd. The terror and destruction America experienced on 9/11 and the Boston marathon is a drop in the ocean compared to the millions of people killed by American WMD's since WW2.

Led by the US, NATO attacked Yugoslavia because the US deemed the Albanian KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) to be a "terrorist" group for wanting to separate from Yugoslavia. By that reasoning, the US was founded by terrorists.

Civilian atrocities began after the US pulverized Afghanistan.

By "Iraqis", you must be referring to the interim (puppet) Iraqi government which was put in place by the US and dances to US orders. Otherwise, Iraqis detest what the US did to their country.

Anonymous wrote:

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 am unaware of any successful ISIS attacks in the USA.

I know there have been several lone wolf attacks by people pledging allegiance to ISIS, but none with any actual operational support or conspiracy by organized terror.

That is Isis though. To think it is a traditional war fighting machine is not to acknowledge it as a disrupter--it is the individuals who succumb to the propaganda and act on their own as much as those who join the core hierarchy. What difference does it make--these "lone wolfs' are acting "in the name of". Same in Bangladesh. Same in Turkey. Those guys were from Russia. Acting "in the name of".

It goes to scale. The guy shooting up a nightclub in the name of ISIS is no different than the guy shooting up a movie theater in Colorado or a school in Connecticut. The need to categorize it as "terror" versus, what, a crime, is so incredibly stupid, as is the puerile semantic argument about "radical Islam." Arguing about the distinction and labels is a red herring.

To my mind, a "terror attack" involves a level of sophistication and coordination far more destructive than one guy with automatic weapon in a crowded nightclub. It's 9/11. It's coordinated attacks in Paris. It's the proverbial dirty bomb. It's literally something that couldn't have happened without training, money and conspiracy.

Isis is not al Qaeda. It is a disruptive model, even to terror. That's why none of the established terror groups can stand it. If we fight new models with old tactics, we will suffer terrible losses until we adapt. To fight the spread of Isis in America and Europe from citizens of those places, look at the fist people their ideology has reached and converted and counter act that through propaganda, surveillance, outreach etc. To fight them at their core, we need a strategy for Syria, Iraq that makes sense--what is the end goal? To fight splinter groups, we need a strategy for N. Africa and Asia. Theme here: we need a strategy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I would ignore the pp who thinks our military is vicious and brutal. She is probably the same poster who would disown her children if they ever joined the military or police force because, you know, they carry guns. Some people do not appreciate the freedom they are afforded BECAUSE of our military and police forces. Ironic that she would post such an uninformed statement on the July 4 holiday weekend.

You do know that there are dozens of very free countries that don't have massive defense budgets and heavily-militarized police, right? Are you under the impression that the United States is the only free country in the world or something?

So sick of this jingoistic "freedom isn't free" bullshit.

Go live in one of those countries, then.

Can anyone tell me why the physician who helped us track down Osama Bin Laden is languishing in a Pakistani prison? What kind of overarching strategy on terror is that a part of?


George Bush:

"...We have a responsibility to share intelligence and coordinate the efforts of law enforcement. If you know something, tell us. If we know something, we will tell you. And when we find the terrorists, let's work together to bring them to justice.

We have a responsibility to deny any sanctuary, safe haven, or . transit to terrorists. Every known terrorist camp must be shut down, its operators apprehended, and evidence of their arrest presented to the United Nations.

We have a responsibility to deny weapons to terrorists - and to actively prevent private citizens from providing them.

These obligations are urgent, and they are binding on every nation with a place in this chamber. Many governments are taking these obligations seriously, and my country appreciates it. Yet even beyond Resolution 1373, more is required - and more is expected - of our coalition against terror. We are asking for a comprehensive commitment to this fight.

We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. In this world there are good causes and bad causes, and we may disagree on where that line is drawn. Yet there is no such thing as a good terrorist. No national aspiration, no remembered wrong, can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent. Any government that rejects this principle - trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends - will know the consequences.

We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th - malicious lies that attempt to shift blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty. To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance the cause of terror. And no government should promote the propaganda of terrorists.

The war against terror must not serve ,as an excuse to persecute ethnic and religious minorities in any country. Innocent people must be allowed to live their own lives, by their own customs, under their own religion. And every nation must have avenues for the peaceful expression of opinion and dissent. When these avenues are closed, the temptation to speak through violence grows.

We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land. My country is pledged to encouraging development and expanding trade. My country is pledged to investing in education and combating AIDS and other infectious diseases around the world. Following September 11 th, these pledges are even more important. In our struggle against hateful groups that exploit poverty and despair, we must offer an alternative of opportunity and hope.

The, American government also stands by its commitment to a just peace in the Middle East. We are working toward a day when two states - Israel and Palestine - live peacefully together, within secure and recognized borders, as called for by Security Council resolutions. We will do all in our power to bring both parties back into negotiations. But peace will only come when all have sworn off - forever - incitement, violence, and terror.

Finally, this struggle is a defining moment for the United Nations itself - and the world needs its principled leadership. It undermines the credibility of this great institution, for example, when the Commission on Human Rights offers seats to some of the world's most persistent violators. of human rights. The United Nations depends, above all, on its moral authority - and that authority must be preserved.

The steps I have described will not be easy. For all nations, they will require effort. For some nations, they will require great courage. Yet the cost of inaction is far greater. The only alternative to victory is a nightmare world, where every city is a potential killing field. "

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18967.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

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 am unaware of any successful ISIS attacks in the USA.

I know there have been several lone wolf attacks by people pledging allegiance to ISIS, but none with any actual operational support or conspiracy by organized terror.

That is Isis though. To think it is a traditional war fighting machine is not to acknowledge it as a disrupter--it is the individuals who succumb to the propaganda and act on their own as much as those who join the core hierarchy. What difference does it make--these "lone wolfs' are acting "in the name of". Same in Bangladesh. Same in Turkey. Those guys were from Russia. Acting "in the name of".

It goes to scale. The guy shooting up a nightclub in the name of ISIS is no different than the guy shooting up a movie theater in Colorado or a school in Connecticut. The need to categorize it as "terror" versus, what, a crime, is so incredibly stupid, as is the puerile semantic argument about "radical Islam." Arguing about the distinction and labels is a red herring.

To my mind, a "terror attack" involves a level of sophistication and coordination far more destructive than one guy with automatic weapon in a crowded nightclub. It's 9/11. It's coordinated attacks in Paris. It's the proverbial dirty bomb. It's literally something that couldn't have happened without training, money and conspiracy.

For ISIS, it is all about ideology. And, the attacks caused by ISIS sympathizers are because of their ideology.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I would ignore the pp who thinks our military is vicious and brutal. She is probably the same poster who would disown her children if they ever joined the military or police force because, you know, they carry guns. Some people do not appreciate the freedom they are afforded BECAUSE of our military and police forces. Ironic that she would post such an uninformed statement on the July 4 holiday weekend.

You do know that there are dozens of very free countries that don't have massive defense budgets and heavily-militarized police, right? Are you under the impression that the United States is the only free country in the world or something?

So sick of this jingoistic "freedom isn't free" bullshit.

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?

I would ignore the pp who thinks our military is vicious and brutal. She is probably the same poster who would disown her children if they ever joined the military or police force because, you know, they carry guns. Some people do not appreciate the freedom they are afforded BECAUSE of our military and police forces. Ironic that she would post such an uninformed statement on the July 4 holiday weekend.

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 am unaware of any successful ISIS attacks in the USA.

I know there have been several lone wolf attacks by people pledging allegiance to ISIS, but none with any actual operational support or conspiracy by organized terror.

That is Isis though. To think it is a traditional war fighting machine is not to acknowledge it as a disrupter--it is the individuals who succumb to the propaganda and act on their own as much as those who join the core hierarchy. What difference does it make--these "lone wolfs' are acting "in the name of". Same in Bangladesh. Same in Turkey. Those guys were from Russia. Acting "in the name of".

It goes to scale. The guy shooting up a nightclub in the name of ISIS is no different than the guy shooting up a movie theater in Colorado or a school in Connecticut. The need to categorize it as "terror" versus, what, a crime, is so incredibly stupid, as is the puerile semantic argument about "radical Islam." Arguing about the distinction and labels is a red herring.

To my mind, a "terror attack" involves a level of sophistication and coordination far more destructive than one guy with automatic weapon in a crowded nightclub. It's 9/11. It's coordinated attacks in Paris. It's the proverbial dirty bomb. It's literally something that couldn't have happened without training, money and conspiracy.

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?

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.

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 am unaware of any successful ISIS attacks in the USA.

I know there have been several lone wolf attacks by people pledging allegiance to ISIS, but none with any actual operational support or conspiracy by organized terror.

That is Isis though. To think it is a traditional war fighting machine is not to acknowledge it as a disrupter--it is the individuals who succumb to the propaganda and act on their own as much as those who join the core hierarchy. What difference does it make--these "lone wolfs' are acting "in the name of". Same in Bangladesh. Same in Turkey. Those guys were from Russia. Acting "in the name of".

jsteele wrote:
ISIS's strategy is to make people be nervous for everything. Conservatives' strategy is the same.

Well, we could watch youtube clips of commercials showing granny being shoved off a cliff...

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.

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 am unaware of any successful ISIS attacks in the USA.

I know there have been several lone wolf attacks by people pledging allegiance to ISIS, but none with any actual operational support or conspiracy by organized terror.