Liberal AP refuses to use the word "Islamic terror."

[Mott the Hoople]

Hmm something about killing "brown" people.

And then ad hominem insults. Is that all you got Mott the libtard?

Well you do have a point. Normally I don't use ad homs but in your case since they are both true and applicable, as you do represent the lowest segment of our society. You know? As in the absolute bottom of the barrel. I"ll go with it.

As for the "Kill Brown People" that's history pal. There was no morally justifiable reason for invading Iraq. You're not kidding anyone...you're a garden variety bigot hiding behind PC language.

 

[protectionist]

Well you do have a point. Normally I don't use ad homs but in your case since they are both true and applicable, as you do represent the lowest segment of our society. You know? As in the absolute bottom of the barrel. I"ll go with it.

As for the "Kill Brown People" that's history pal. There was no morally justifiable reason for invading Iraq. You're not kidding anyone...you're a garden variety bigot hiding behind PC language.

The talk about "invading Iraq" (2002) is often used a DEFLECTION from facing up to Obama's screw-up in leaving Iraq in 2011, thereby opening up the vacuum for ISIS to step in + Obama's failure to stop ISIS, when that could easily have been done. Time for us all to get up to date.

 

[Darth Omar]

Well you do have a point. Normally I don't use ad homs but in your case since they are both true and applicable, as you do represent the lowest segment of our society. You know? As in the absolute bottom of the barrel. I"ll go with it.

As for the "Kill Brown People" that's history pal. There was no morally justifiable reason for invading Iraq. You're not kidding anyone...you're a garden variety bigot hiding behind PC language.

Mott, you're becoming an articulate Desh with the racist thing.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The talk about "invading Iraq" (2002) is often used a DEFLECTION from facing up to Obama's screw-up in leaving Iraq in 2011, thereby opening up the vacuum for ISIS to step in + Obama's failure to stop ISIS, when that could easily have been done. Time for us all to get up to date.

Yea right...so how long do we stay in Iraq to fix the power vacuum that you conservatives created? How do we undo the resentments towards our nation that you created with your immoral invasion of Iraq? You're logic is deeply and seriously flawed if you place blame on the situation in Iraq and the ME on anyone but the George W. Bush administration and his neoconservative enablers. So let's try and stick to fact based arguments and not right wing propaganda.

 

[iolo]

The talk about "invading Iraq" (2002) is often used a DEFLECTION from facing up to Obama's screw-up in leaving Iraq in 2011, thereby opening up the vacuum for ISIS to step in + Obama's failure to stop ISIS, when that could easily have been done. Time for us all to get up to date.

Hitler felt the same about the screw-up in Stalingrad - the sort of thing your President avoided.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Mott, you're becoming an articulate Desh with the racist thing.

No you're just simply obtuse. Irish is a bigot. That's not an ad hominem attack actually. The issue at hand is racial bigotry. Irish and you are using stereotypes, ignorance and prejudice to make sweeping generalizations about an entire ethnicity and religion. That's bigotry sir. So it's not like I'm just throwing it out there.

 

[Darth Omar]

No you're just simply obtuse. Irish is a bigot. That's not an ad hominem attack actually. The issue at hand is racial bigotry. Irish and you are using stereotypes, ignorance and prejudice to make sweeping generalizations about an entire ethnicity and religion. That's bigotry sir. So it's not like I'm just throwing it out there.

I don't speak for anyone but myself. What sweeping generalizations am I making about Islam?

 

[christiefan915]

You can't wage war on a tactic. We had the debate in 2001 or 2002.

If the war on terror was nonsensical under Bush it's gotten even moreso under Obama. It's really kind of weird. Why can't we just call them what they are?

How Islamic do they have to be before we [our government] can call them Islamic terrorists?

We should do it whenever it's decided to call all terrorist groups by a religious designation, not just Muslims.

 

[anatta]

Hitler felt the same about the screw-up in Stalingrad - the sort of thing your President avoided.

Does Libya ring a bell?-
ISIS on the Mediterranean -contact your local travel agent...

AND we now have permanent Special Forces, and Brits SAS there again -

 

[Darth Omar]

We should do it whenever it's decided to call all terrorist groups by a religious designation, not just Muslims.

You don't really think I care if the government were to start calling once a decade abortion bombers Christian terrorists, right? They are, btw.

The problem is Christian terrorism isn't a national security concern. Christian terrorists aren't committing genocide in the Middle East; they are a non-factor in Iran; they haven't set up a caliphate in Iraq; I severely doubt they're mentioned in Obama's daily intelligence briefing.

But Islamic terrorists are. So go ahead and call Christian terrorism, Christian terrorism.

 

[anatta]

so what is it now?? "Violent( can't say Islamic) extremists?"

oh.. ok.. ISIS and AQ are not organized along religious lines?

Both Zawahiri and Baghdadi have religious titles of emir ( and the affiliates use various honorariums to speak of them)

 

[christiefan915]

You don't really think I care if the government were to start calling once a decade abortion bombers Christian terrorists, right? They are, btw.

The problem is Christian terrorism isn't a national security concern. Christian terrorists aren't committing genocide in the Middle East; they are a non-factor in Iran; they haven't set up a caliphate in Iraq; I severely doubt they're mentioned in Obama's daily intelligence briefing.

But Islamic terrorists are. So go ahead and call Christian terrorism, Christian terrorism.

I didn't specify "Christian." I can just imagine the horror if the US referred to all the religious terrorism in Israel as "Jewish terrorism" or Saffron terrorism as "Hindu terrorism."

 

[anatta]

I didn't specify "Christian." I can just imagine the horror if the US referred to all the religious terrorism in Israel as "Jewish terrorism" or Saffron terrorism as "Hindu terrorism."

We barely speak of that at all. You aren't going to hear criticism from the AIPAC candidates of Clinton and Trump.
There is a growing repulsion of "mowing the grass of Gaza" - but that's part of a war.
And Indian terrorism?? whom does it impact? are they calling for jihad on takfir/apostates?

Islamic terrorism is just that. It's not all of Islam, buy it's a significat outgrowth of the political/religious aspects of Islam.
Some going after Muslim countries ( Like Sinai Province in Egypt) some going after Muslims in the Levant,
and some in Europe, and some homegrown/influenced extensions here.

What do they ALL have in common?? They rely on scripture that they are doing the Will of Allah

 

[Darth Omar]

so what is it now?? "Violent( can't say Islamic) extremists?"

oh.. ok.. ISIS and AQ are not organized along religious lines?

Both Zawahiri and Baghdadi have religious titles of emir ( and the affiliates use various honorariums to speak of them)

It's ridiculous. Absurd hardly describes it.

 

[christiefan915]

It's ridiculous. Absurd hardly describes it.

Did you bring it up to your messiah bush lol?

 

[protectionist]

Yea right...so how long do we stay in Iraq to fix the power vacuum that you conservatives created? How do we undo the resentments towards our nation that you created with your immoral invasion of Iraq? You're logic is deeply and seriously flawed if you place blame on the situation in Iraq and the ME on anyone but the George W. Bush administration and his neoconservative enablers. So let's try and stick to fact based arguments and not right wing propaganda.

We stay as long as we NEED to stay, to insure US national security. Right now, that means 100% EXTERMINATION of ISIS. There is no flawed logic in that. I don't give a rat's ass what anybody resents. I'll guess a lot of Germans resented the carpet bombing of Germany for 3 years, which killed thousands of innocent people, ordered by the guy in my avatar, and the Japs probably resented the nuking of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, ordered by Truman. So who wants to go back in time, redo it all over again without those seen to be "immoral" actions, and live with the consequences of a possible Hitler/Hirohito victory?

I place blame on Obama for allowing ISIS to occupy Iraqi cities, that thousands of US lives were spent to liberate from al Qaeda in Iraq (forerunner of ISIS), and then to passively sit by (or play golf) while the uncivilized, barbaric savages went around slaughtering people, and threatening America. As far as I'm concerned, he's in cahoots with them. He's one of them. And his suck-ups (Hillary, Kerry, etc) aren't much better.

 

[anatta]

^ without a doubt Obama is culpable with his "JV" talk of standing by and watching ISIS gobble up Iraqi cities -
when they were in Toyota caravans crossing the desert ( sitting ducks)..

And now we have Iran leading the Iraqi army -but mostly Shi'a militia ( and Kurds to an extent) -
to the extent Quds forces are in Anbar!!

That's on Obama. The fact the Iraq's refused to fight the fist time..not so much

Qods Force commander Soleimani reportedly spotted in Anbar province
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archi...mani-reportedly-spotted-in-anbar-province.php

 

[protectionist]

No you're just simply obtuse. Irish is a bigot. That's not an ad hominem attack actually. The issue at hand is racial bigotry. Irish and you are using stereotypes, ignorance and prejudice to make sweeping generalizations about an entire ethnicity and religion. That's bigotry sir. So it's not like I'm just throwing it out there.

I challenge your charge of "bigotry". What "stereotypes, ignorance and prejudice" are you referring to ? Can you specifically pinpoint ? What "sweeping generalizations", and how are they wrong ?

 

[protectionist]

^ without a doubt Obama is culpable with his "JV" talk of standing by and watching ISIS gobble up Iraqi cities -
when they were in Toyota caravans crossing the desert ( sitting ducks)..

And now we have Iran leading the Iraqi army -but mostly Shi'a militia ( and Kurds to an extent) -
to the extent Quds forces are in Anbar!!

That's on Obama. The fact the Iraq's refused to fight the fist time..not so much

Qods Force commander Soleimani reportedly spotted in Anbar province
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archi...mani-reportedly-spotted-in-anbar-province.php

WELL SAID!

 

[Irish]

Well you do have a point. Normally I don't use ad homs but in your case since they are both true and applicable, as you do represent the lowest segment of our society. You know? As in the absolute bottom of the barrel. I"ll go with it.

As for the "Kill Brown People" that's history pal. There was no morally justifiable reason for invading Iraq. You're not kidding anyone...you're a garden variety bigot hiding behind PC language.

More personal and weird attacks. As for the IRaq war, your queen Hillary voted for the war. As did most democrats. I guess we should Impeach them too right?

Spare me the holier than thou act, and stick to the facts. It will serve you well in the future. You are just mad liberalism has failed time and time again, and have to invent boogy men to keep its empty promises going.