I wonder who is responsible for the latest attack in Nice?

is there a lib gene wrote:

Joloo wrote:

Lol. You can't read.

Soooo if if the US didn't attack dictators they helped install wed have more isis?

I'm sure that dictators would gave gladly given their power to a rogue terrorist movement.

LOL. there was no failure to rebuild. The rebuilding was successful. What was an epic failure was the pull out.

and to your question, yes, they would have been overthrown in Iraq. For f*ucksake, look at Syria. They would have destroyed Iraq and were planning on it. Our presence kept them unmotivated and they were actually decreasing in numbers. When we pulled out, it gave them the green light to grow.

Have you heard of a strategy of tension? Brush up on the writings of Zbigniew Brzezinski. The reason why ISIS and to a larger extent extremism was not as much of a problem is precisely because of strong dictators. It's a sad fact, but a strong Assad, Hussein, and Ghaddafi kept radical factions in check. It's only when these despots are forcefully removed that a power vaccuum develops and the extremists rush in to fill it. And, obviously, war weary people are going to join the cause to evict foreign occupiers, whether they are extremists or not.

When the U.S. entered Iraq, they created the first no-win because there was no way to leave without creating said power vacuum. Once a state is embroiled in sectarian violence, it's also no-win situation for the occupier; whatever group you target makes the other groups stronger.

Let's also not forget who armed these extremists in the first place. Aren't the unintended consequences of proxy wars great?

There is a huge pile of long winded liberal sh*t

Really? You don't think there's a distinction between defensive wars and change of regime wars?

There are places in the world that can't be governed the way we are in the US. We are worse than naive to think that we can impose democracy in the Middle East.

This is one of the major reasons I question whether I should be a repub. it used to be that we chose between big spending Democrats and frugal Republicans. No more. Now both party's are exactly the same on spending. The dems spend at home and the repubs start another unwinable war. If we're going to spend the money anyway I'd rather spend it at home.

Truckdriver wrote:

Really? You don't think there's a distinction between defensive wars and change of regime wars?

There are places in the world that can't be governed the way we are in the US. We are worse than naive to think that we can impose democracy in the Middle East.

This is one of the major reasons I question whether I should be a repub. it used to be that we chose between big spending Democrats and frugal Republicans. No more. Now both party's are exactly the same on spending. The dems spend at home and the repubs start another unwinable war. If we're going to spend the money anyway I'd rather spend it at home.

The problem is that US today is occupying vast regions of Islamic through the use of puppet regimes placed in power by the CIA.

Your momma, France is being bombed every few weeks, not the horrible USA

Unfortunately, "there is a huge pile of long winded liberal sh*t" is not an argument. Care to make one?

France should re-patriate millions of Jews it threw out of France after WWII and give back their assets and real estate. That will help end the foreign occupation of Palestine and relieve much of the chaos in the Middle East,

Smiles like.... wrote:

There is a huge pile of long winded liberal sh*t

I'm also having a little problem with your idea that I'm a liberal. You'll recall that a Republican got us into the "hot" war, but it was a Democrat who started these proxy wars. Some of us are not bound to binary left/right thinking.

It was a truck accoording to CNN and NYT.

http://www.infowars.com/media-blames-truck-not-terrorists-or-islam-for-nice-attack/

Oh Barry wrote:

Just wondering if there have been more Islamic terrorist attacks during the Obama Administration than under GW Bush?

Ummm, remember Baghdad 2005? So yeah, way more under Bush.

don't jump to conclusions wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/14/truck-crashes-into-crowd-at-bastille-day-celebrations-in-nice2/

Was it a reaction to a video someone made that no one has ever seen?

Not me. I'm one of the manly Muslim physicians working in the hospital. Well I'm a resident. I can't control what some Idio*s who don't even follow the teachings of the Koran or hadith do.

I control myself, that's all.

You aren't used to thinking more than one step ahead, are you?

Must be a hell of a chess player.

That's a cute response, but it doesn't address my point and it really makes you look defensive.

You already admitted (without realizing it) that you have a patronizing double-standard when it comes to the behavior of Muslims. And it seems that you're completely unaware of the sinister implications of your statement. What you're essentially saying is that we live in a world with neighbors who are so prickly and easily "radicalized" to violence that criticism of their religion will turn ordinary, peaceful people into jihadist maniacs. While the original poster to whom you replied is clearly not very thoughtful or nuanced, he made sense at the end - if someone can't handle free speech, he is unfit for civil society. In the conflict between freedom of expression and violent theocratic impulses, free expression simply has to win. What you seem to be advocating is holding ourselves accountable to Islamic blasphemy laws. How masochistic.

You could compare the dilemma that we're facing to what Churchill and England faced at the start of WW2.

Hitler wanted England to be its ally and Churchill could have come to an agreement with Hitler that involved England staying neutral in the war. This would have initially prevented immense loss of life and the destruction of cities caused by German bombing attacks. On the other hand, if England were to allow Hitler and Germany to control all of Europe unmolested, how long until they would decide to cross the English Channel and who would stop them then?

Likewise, taking a strong stance against political Islam will likely lead to more casualties in the short term but, if we continue to surrender our rights and freedoms in the name of appeasing Islam and continue to allow millions of Muslims, who want Sharia law, to move into our countries, how long before Western countries begin to resemble the Middle East?

In my mind Churchill made the correct decision.[/quote]

What an almost unimaginably terrible analogy. I'm not even sure if we should grace it with that name.

Surrender our rights and freedoms? Ummm...exactly what rights would those be? Because as far as I am aware the only rights that have been surrendered recently have been those which have been surrendered in the name of the "War" on terrorism (read the "Patriot" Act).

Kkkjjjjjj wrote:

ISIS would not be in Iraq is Saddam were in power.

So let's conclude: The latest attack in Nice is Bush's fault.

Really? Do you really think that your "thinking" qualifies as human level intelligence? Seriously?

That is one of the major problems in this world. People have essentially zero ability to think and lack even that small dose of self-awareness that would help them recognize that fact.

It would take more time than I care to invest in communicating with someone who appears to have the intelligence of a retarded earthworm. So, perhaps just your first point:

1) " If huge numbers of Muslims will become radicalized because of unkind statements about their religion, we have an enormous problem on our hands. Just think about what you’re saying here."

Wrong. Wrong. And, oh, wrong.

(a) We DO have an enormous problem on our hands. Did you not already realize this?

(b) I never said that huge numbers of Muslims will become radicalized because of unkind statements about their religion. Perhaps I am capable of thinking a step or two ahead. I know that is a difficult concept to grasp for someone without that ability.

(i) The leader of the free world " hold(ing) a press conference while standing in front of a white board... pick(ing) up a marker and draw(ing) a picture of Mohammed on a pigs body" is not simply an "unkind statement". I'll let you fill in the blanks (even though I know you lack the intellectual capacity to do so).

(ii) "I would insult them and troll them in every way I could and set up government run traps to offend Muslims and then be ready to kill any Muslim who shows up with bad intent."

Indeed, that sounds like a very Presidential thing to do. Quite unlikely to lead to any violence that would otherwise not happen, No? And of course violence and deaths most definitely do not have any influence on the attitudes and ultimately the behavior of those who love or even relate to those killed, right?

(iii) Did you ever hear of the notion of government refraining from endorsing or denouncing particular religions? You might want to familiarize yourself with this concept as it is one of the pillars of Western Civilization. And somehow, I don't know, I just get this crazy feeling that having the President of the United Stated going out of his way to mock a major religion is just a tad askew of this principle. Just a tad.

(c) No, it is most definitely YOU who needs to think about what you are saying, my little-brained friend.

Well, that is only your first "point". And I grow weary of communicating with a lower life form.

Now, start up with you "ad hominem attacks" protest. "Insults are a sign of desperation..." But no, in this case I am hardly exaggerating. Perhaps just a smidgen to liven things up a bit.

But by no means try to address the substance of what I said. I know that you are incapable. So please do not embarrass yourself trying.

What an almost unimaginably terrible analogy. I'm not even sure if we should grace it with that name.

Surrender our rights and freedoms? Ummm...exactly what rights would those be? Because as far as I am aware the only rights that have been surrendered recently have been those which have been surrendered in the name of the "War" on terrorism (read the "Patriot" Act).[/quote]

There's already martial law in France and Belgium. Do you want to live in a country with armed soldiers on every street corner? Don't say that it could never happen here.

Yes, the Patriot Act is a perfect example, as well as the new security screening at airports and the stifling of free speech in the media and elsewhere, so as not to offend Muslims.

There's also the fact that any time there's a mass shooting, many leaders in government use it as an excuse to push for tougher gun regulations.

I'm sorry that the analogy went over your head. Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand and be prepared to accept some casualties in the short term in order to protect your country's way of life in the long term.

There's already martial law in France and Belgium. Do you want to live in a country with armed soldiers on every street corner? Don't say that it could never happen here.

Yes, the Patriot Act is a perfect example, as well as the new security screening at airports and the stifling of free speech in the media and elsewhere, so as not to offend Muslims.

There's also the fact that any time there's a mass shooting, many leaders in government use it as an excuse to push for tougher gun regulations.

I'm sorry that the analogy went over your head. Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand and be prepared to accept some casualties in the short term in order to protect your country's way of life in the long term.[/quote]

Wait, wait, let me see if I have this straight.

So, we are "surrender(ing) our rights and freedoms in the name of appeasing Islam" by surrendering our rights and freedoms in the name of fighting Islam (Patriot Act, martial law...).

Did I get that right?

You sound like a real intellectual heavyweight!

[quote]Truckdriver wrote:

Really? You don't think there's a distinction between defensive wars and change of regime wars?

There are places in the world that can't be governed the way we are in the US. We are worse than naive to think that we can impose democracy in the Middle East.

Its naive to think we have a democracy here in America or that American policy in the ME is about imposing democracy.

American policy in the ME is about creating failed states and states ruled over by a puppet tyrant. All for a sick neocon vision of what is good not for the USA but for an ever expanding Israel.

This is called blowback.