When is the World going to realize

[backhoeboogie]

Folks on our side don't seem to realize it takes two to stop a war. They still think they can fight or bomb for awhile, pull out and the world will be at peace. Nobody bothers to consult with the other side.

Very good point.
I was always told that it takes two to make a fight.
Took me a long time to finally realize that it takes two to get along in peace.

A peace treaty has no value when no one has to keep their word to infadels. We're pulling out and they are prepping for the next attack.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Go to Wikipedia and read Winston Churchills speech from 1899 pretty eye opening. It describes today's philosophy to a tee hasn't changed in over a hundred years.

 

[haase]

Seems like todays way of thinking as a leader the best way to fight this is just go to a ball game and do the wave.

 

[TexasBred]

Seems like todays way of thinking as a leader the best way to fight this is just go to a ball game and do the wave.

When you've already been bought and paid for it doesn't leave much else to do. At least he was out of the way for a few hours.

 

[slick4591]

Folks on our side don't seem to realize it takes two to stop a war. They still think they can fight or bomb for awhile, pull out and the world will be at peace. Nobody bothers to consult with the other side.

This is not a conventional war.

About the only way for Europe to fix this is round them up send them back to the colonies.
Purge the continent and stop immigration. The European colonies had a source of cheap labor
so they invited them in. Problem is they invited the devil.
We are not far behind.

Looks like Sweden is taking the lead.

 

[Texas Gal]

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters had a very interesting segment on Bill O'Reilly last night. Here's one quote:

"The American people can certainly summon the will to defeat ISIS if they are properly led," Peters opined, "but we are not properly led. Generalities won't defeat ISIS and I am not hearing the strength of character that it will take. We now have two generations of military officers who have been convinced that it is more important to prevent casualties and collateral damage than to win. I don't know if our military leaders have what it takes to defeat ISIS - it's not about winning hearts and minds, it's about splashing their hearts and brains all over the landscape."

 

[Caustic Burno]

Folks on our side don't seem to realize it takes two to stop a war. They still think they can fight or bomb for awhile, pull out and the world will be at peace. Nobody bothers to consult with the other side.

This is not a conventional war.

About the only way for Europe to fix this is round them up send them back to the colonies.
Purge the continent and stop immigration. The European colonies had a source of cheap labor
so they invited them in. Problem is they invited the devil.
We are not far behind.

Looks like Sweden is taking the lead.

That is a shock as they are a very liberal socialist society.

 

[JWBrahman]

We didn't get into this situation overnight and we certainly dont have any quick fixes or easy solutions everyone can agree upon.

You cannot look to the past to figure this one out. We are not fighting Hitler and Goebbels. These countries are 85% under the age of 30. ISIS is a glorified drug cartel seizing a particular moment in history to set up a regional narco state to manufacture heroin and meth.

People never get tired of blaming somebody else for their problems. We have been doing business for decades with decadent characters who stay in power by blaming the US for everything. Dilma Rouseff in Brazil has been blaming us for years, and look how that is turning out.

People in other countries love the American people. Every last one of em in Brazil would be here tomorrow smiling like crazy if we let them.

 

[Bestoutwest]

You suggest a scorched earth policy, yet do you suggest that for our country as well? The very problem with ISIS is that they're everywhere. They are like a disease waiting, dormant until told to act. They are in America. That's what scares me the most. They're here, everywhere. A couple of years ago they found one in Boise. However, when you start rounding up a singular religious group, you're no better than Hitler.

 

[Ryder]

However, when you start rounding up a singular religious group, you're no better than Hitler.

I think there is a difference.
I don't think the people Hitler was rounding up were trying to kill him or destroy the country.

 

[Bestoutwest]

I think there is a difference.
I don't think the people Hitler was rounding up were trying to kill him or destroy the country.

So every. single. American. Muslim is going to blow up your family? Seriously? That's like saying all guns need to be banned b/c they're used in mass shootings.

 

[Ryder]

Apples and oranges. I can't agree with your reasoning--(or lack thereof :cboy: )

 

[Caustic Burno]

However, when you start rounding up a singular religious group, you're no better than Hitler.

I think there is a difference.
I don't think the people Hitler was rounding up were trying to kill him or destroy the country.

Exactly they want to have a relgous califate with no choice.
You still have never seen a peace march only force of will through intimidation.
I say we have to get on their level to win there is no such thing as collateral damage.
Kill everything from a Shanghai rooster to a Durham cow and finish off like McArthur wanted to do in Korea lay a cobalt belt around them. He was in it to win it.

 

[dun]

You suggest a scorched earth policy, yet do you suggest that for our country as well? The very problem with ISIS is that they're everywhere. They are like a disease waiting, dormant until told to act. They are in America. That's what scares me the most. They're here, everywhere. A couple of years ago they found one in Boise. However, when you start rounding up a singular religious group, you're no better than Hitler.

They arrested isis woman last month in Buffalo Missouri. That came as a helluva shock to everyone

 

[Bestoutwest]

Apples and oranges. I can't agree with your reasoning--(or lack thereof :cboy: )

Let me spell it out for you.
There are 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide. How many ISIS members are there? According to one website I found it's approximately 30,000 fighters. With that number there's about 53,000 good Muslims to every bad Muslim.

On the same accord there are ~100 Americans that own guns. Last year there were 12,942 gun deaths in America. Let's pretend that there were at least 8,000 different gunmen to account for mass shootings (more than 4). That means there are (hypothetically) 12,500 good gun owners to one bad.

So what I'm getting at, b/c there are 30,000 religious freaks out there, does it mean that an entire religion is at blame? Because if it does, then all good gun owners need to be blamed for those few bad apples that choose to use guns to kill people. The prevailing argument on here is that guns are not the problem, it's the mental health of those perpetrating the atrocity. The same could very well be applied to radical Islam. I know that I'm not going to change your mind, but rather I hope that you look at this from a different angle. I'm sure you like guns. I'm sure that you hate when people insist on banning guns after every mass shooting, because quite frankly it isn't your fault that some whacko walked into somewhere and started taking out people. It's the same with Islam. It's just a freak with a grudge that goes crazy.

 

[dun]

Apples and oranges. I can't agree with your reasoning--(or lack thereof :cboy: )

Let me spell it out for you.
There are 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide. How many ISIS members are there? According to one website I found it's approximately 30,000 fighters. With that number there's about 53,000 good Muslims to every bad Muslim.

On the same accord there are ~100 Americans that own guns. Last year there were 12,942 gun deaths in America. Let's pretend that there were at least 8,000 different gunmen to account for mass shootings (more than 4). That means there are (hypothetically) 12,500 good gun owners to one bad.

So what I'm getting at, b/c there are 30,000 religious freaks out there, does it mean that an entire religion is at blame? Because if it does, then all good gun owners need to be blamed for those few bad apples that choose to use guns to kill people. The prevailing argument on here is that guns are not the problem, it's the mental health of those perpetrating the atrocity. The same could very well be applied to radical Islam. I know that I'm not going to change your mind, but rather I hope that you look at this from a different angle. I'm sure you like guns. I'm sure that you hate when people insist on banning guns after every mass shooting, because quite frankly it isn't your fault that some whacko walked into somewhere and started taking out people. It's the same with Islam. It's just a freak with a grudge that goes crazy.

The problem with your theory is that the "good" gun owners get upset when the "bad" gun owners" go on a rampage. I rarely if ever hear the "good" muslims, the majority" say anything negative about what the "bad" muslims have done. If they don;t speak up they are just enablers.

 

[1wlimo]

Apples and oranges. I can't agree with your reasoning--(or lack thereof :cboy: )

Let me spell it out for you.
There are 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide. How many ISIS members are there? According to one website I found it's approximately 30,000 fighters. With that number there's about 53,000 good Muslims to every bad Muslim.

On the same accord there are ~100 Americans that own guns. Last year there were 12,942 gun deaths in America. Let's pretend that there were at least 8,000 different gunmen to account for mass shootings (more than 4). That means there are (hypothetically) 12,500 good gun owners to one bad.

So what I'm getting at, b/c there are 30,000 religious freaks out there, does it mean that an entire religion is at blame? Because if it does, then all good gun owners need to be blamed for those few bad apples that choose to use guns to kill people. The prevailing argument on here is that guns are not the problem, it's the mental health of those perpetrating the atrocity. The same could very well be applied to radical Islam. I know that I'm not going to change your mind, but rather I hope that you look at this from a different angle. I'm sure you like guns. I'm sure that you hate when people insist on banning guns after every mass shooting, because quite frankly it isn't your fault that some whacko walked into somewhere and started taking out people. It's the same with Islam. It's just a freak with a grudge that goes crazy.

The problem with your theory is that the "good" gun owners get upset when the "bad" gun owners" go on a rampage. I rarely if ever hear the "good" muslims, the majority" say anything negative about what the "bad" muslims have done. If they don;t speak up they are just enablers.

True we hear very little of this, but I do know that when they have spoken out in the UK at least there was only a brief mention of it in the press and no headlines. If that miss reporting happens in the UK with a reasonably unbiased media what happens in other countries?

 

[1wlimo]

However, when you start rounding up a singular religious group, you're no better than Hitler.

I think there is a difference.
I don't think the people Hitler was rounding up were trying to kill him or destroy the country.

Exactly they want to have a relgous califate with no choice.
You still have never seen a peace march only force of will through intimidation.
I say we have to get on their level to win there is no such thing as collateral damage.
Kill everything from a Shanghai rooster to a Durham cow and finish off like McArthur wanted to do in Korea lay a cobalt belt around them. He was in it to win it.

If I come into your town and remove the element you dislike, then you are going to be happy if I accidentally remove your house hold too, but then collateral damage is ok.

All out war on an area of the world is very costly. Much better to follow the bible and accept it's teaching, while sending in small highly trained but cheap and effective special forces.

 

[Bestoutwest]

The problem with your theory is that the "good" gun owners get upset when the "bad" gun owners" go on a rampage. I rarely if ever hear the "good" muslims, the majority" say anything negative about what the "bad" muslims have done. If they don;t speak up they are just enablers.[/quote]

Yes, you are very correct about the enablers. I think a lot of it has to do with the media. Going back to guns, how many times does the media just focus on whackos killing innocents vs. how many times people use a gun to defend themselves? I hardly ever hear a positive gun story, yet there's millions of gun owners that are great people having fun shooting stuff. I hope that there are thousands of Imams that speak out against this violence and that we just don't hear about it b/c it doesn't sell the news.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Surgical is never going to work .
They have to believe it is going to cost them more than their willing to pay.
Where do you want to fight in your home town and your fields or theirs.
The fight is scheduled time and place to be determined at a later date.
Do you really think they aren't willing to nuke us they just don't have the ability yet.
You will see how they feel about collateral damage.