Terror Deaths in Paris

Then you are effectively calling for 150-250,000 American troops to return to that shit-hole. Let's call a spade a spade.

 

jobs might be part of the problem...?? we've had Black September, IRA, Hamas, Al-Quaeda, Boko H, ISIS ,etc etc...Osama bin Laden had mucho money....a lot of times, we have colllege age students with ''ideals'' in their minds....they want to change the world.....and some want to do it by using murder......I think big business is screwing the little guy here in the US....I don't go out and murder....my dad lived during the Depression--no heat....no nothing...his culture did not ''teach'' him to go kill innocent people because of that....sure some of it might be because of no jobs, but many terrorists are just idealists....with jobs......

 

Too many quotes so I'll recombine a couple to try and get this in one post.

Another opinion but you know the value of your opinions around here. Somewhat less than 0 to most of us. Care to offer some proof.

Your conclusion is not logically supported by the follow on statement. By the way care to produce some numbers on how many were Moslims or ex Muslims?

You are assuming that if they wanted to kill Muslims that would be their ownly goal. That is demonstrably incorrect. On the other hand it is quite clear that they target other Muslims. Both their statements and actions confirm that.

There were likely quite a few ways they could have killed more people. They wanted press exposure as well and they were aiming to impact decision making in certain ways as well I suspect.

What have you been drinking/smoking? I don't think I've seen a single article excusing the murderers.

What Marxist arguments? The impact of poverty and corruption is in no way a Marxist or even a liberal argument. Indeed corruption and poeverty were one of the common traits of Marxist governements. Oh that's right you don't really comprehend the real world rather you seem to believe in the fantasy you have created.

That is at best vastly over simplifying things.

Wrong. By the conventions of warfare and of civilized behavior civilian casualties must be a consideration. That doesn't mean that it completely over rules military operations but due care must be taken to minimize them.

Source PLS. If he really did say it I strongly suspect you have removed it from all relevent context.

Not a strawman at all. It illustrated that he didn't think in absolute terms when it comes down to warfare.

I'm not sure where you get your information but that is hardly correct. Oh that's right you make it up to fit your beliefs. I'm not even sure how you can define the average Muslim much less tell if or how they are committed. That asside the US has recieved a fair amount of help from Muslims all over the world in regards to antiterrist actions.

Thou art waxing incoherent.

I can't think of a single nation Muslim or not that supports Daesh or wouldn't be happy if they vanished. Care to produce some source that prove otherwise?

 

Bronk, you may not go out and murder, but the poor in this country sure do.

In the 30s there were gangster wars, the bonus army, coal wars, major violent strikes.

As for the 911 hijackers, I couldn't imagine living in Saudi Arabia.

 

Well some of them are to greater or lesser extent. I think it was Bahrain that basiclly bought off the "Arab Spring". The problem is the way they are distributing it (in many cases as intitlements) may not be helping the problem at all. Henery Ford did a lot of good though just by realizing that he had a lot to gain if his employees could also be his customers. He even said something about paying them enough so they could buy his cars. Sadly that sort of thinking seems to be rare in CEO's today. I'm not sure what the solution is but it's a lot easier to find one if we have a clear understanding of the real problem. As I mentioned though ljad doesn't seem interested in understanding much of anything though, he rather rant about his opinions calling them facts.

 

not the same at all.....these people are murdering innocent women and children...seems to be a 'trait' of Muslims, Arabs, etc ..whatever..they form squads to do this.....Amiericans murder because of human nature, they are not ''taught'' and indoctrinated to do it....the US people and Israelis are NOT going overseas and murdering innocent women and children....

 

No , i am proposing a surgical clean-up using a MK 54 David Crockett,or a MK 54 SADM or a W 54 ..It will save a lot of lives and the Muslims will have respect for the West : what's the use of a nuclear weapon,if one is afraid to use it ?

Desperate cases require desperate remedies .

 

Those who are talking about DAESH prove that they belong to the Muslim lobby .

 

The CEO of the Muslim Brotherhood (adress Pennsylvania Avenue Washington DC) was forced in Vienna to admit that the Muslim community had not done enough to stop the terrorists .

Translation : the Muslim Community (1.5 billion) has done nothing to stop the terrorists and must thus be held coresponsible for the ISIS atrocities and it must suffer the consequences,as did the Germans .

 

Wow...

 

Those who refuse to use a nuclear weapon will be responsible for the countless casualties that will happen :if some one had the guts to destroy ISIS,the victims of Paris would still be alive.

 

What you are proposing is insane and fortunatly not possible or practicle. It would also make Daesh, Al Quda, and their fellow travelers very happy.

??? It would really help the level of converstation around here if you just stayed in your fantasy world. Again you prove you have no idea what you are talking about.

sources please.

Or not. I have a funny feeling that if he did indeed say anything like you said he did the community he is talking about isn't the one you are talking about. In any case your logic would also suggest that the Greeks, French, Danish, Dutch, Norwegians, etc should have suffered the consequences. I have been less than impressed by your postings previously but this recent batch inspires a level of contempt that I didn't think I would ever hold for someone on this forum.

The terrorist casualties in the West have been quite low In 2013 the US suffered fewer traffic fatalities in any year after 1949 with the possible exception of 2014 according to wiki at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
All the fatalites due to terrorist attacks in Western Europe and the Americas since that data don't add up to more than a fraction of the 32,719 dead in that year. Most years they wouldn't even add up to 1% of the traffic fatalities in the same year. Get some perspective on things. We do need to act against terrorism and in particular that practiced by Daesh but it's not the threat you think it is. Indeed the damage to our society that acting as you suggest would inflict would be much greater.

 

No you are not...As none of those weapons even exist anymore the Davy Crockett & the W-54 were retired 1971/72, and the SADM was retired by 1989.

Care to try again...Perhaps with a nuclear weapon from the current decade this time.

 

He's talking about our Commander-in-Chief.

 

He really is confused isn''t he? Oh in case anyone is wondering about this:

See:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/what-daesh-mean-isis-threatens-6841468
I knew that they didn't like it but not exactly why other than it was easily mistaken for other unflattering term(s).

 

Are you sure?

With all the fictitious nonsense he has been spouting, it might just as well be Santa Claus....

You know...Long beard...Muslim for sure.

 

As a rule, I (try to) never post about current politics on this forum. This thread kind makes me realize why I have that rule. Usually, it's nice to come here just to get away from the divisive stuff.

 

I think you have taken this way too far. What you propose is ludicrous and completely ridiculous. This is not 1945, and the association of the two is completely ridiculous. I can't even believe this thread has turned into whether or not we should drop the bomb, effectively murdering countless of innocent lives. I will die happy just knowing that my moral compass will never point in that direction. Force is absolutely necessary, and a holy hell of it is necessary. But to even contemplate the use of nuclear weapons is off the tree. This is not a "let me one you up" situation. A weapon of that magnitude, unless it's the zombie apocalypse, is useless. You wipe out ISIS, sure, and also generations of innocent peace loving people around the globe.