Terrorist bomb kills at least 50 today - what should Obama do, conservatives?

I love this troll OP. 50 die because of Obama's failed FP, yet the OP takes aim at Cons, and puts the burden on them.

How about asking what OBAMA should do? What a hack the OP is.
 
I love this troll OP. 50 die because of Obama's failed FP, yet the OP takes aim at Cons, and puts the burden on them. How about asking what OBAMA should do? What a hack the OP is.

50 died because of Obamas' failed foreign policy?

Can you tell us what Obama should do, con?

I'll understand if you can't.
 
I don't favor banning a religion. I favor banning a region.

Pretty simple actually. No immigration from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Africa, Saudi Arabja, Israel etc.


Nl3aipV.jpg
 
Oh, never mind. This is just your standard retreat tactic. But you can't answer my questions, can you? I'll understand if you can't.

I accept your admission that you misspoke when you insinuated that I said we deserved 9/11.

What caused 9/11?

A failure to vet the hijackers when they entered the USA to the standard that cons demand of the current administration.


one of the 19 9/11 hijackers came to the U.S. on a student visa, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. That one was Hani Hanjour, a Saudi Arabian terrorist who piloted the plane that was flown into the Pentagon, according to a 2004 staff report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. In his student visa application, Hanjour provided paperwork showing that he was enrolled in an English as a second language program in Oakland, Calif., but he never attended after arriving in America (a fact that would draw scrutiny today). He did not, however, overstay his student visa.

Of the other 18 9/11 hijackers, 14 came to the United States on six-month tourist visas and four came on business visas, according to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Once in the U.S., two of the hijack pilots applied to have their immigration status changed to vocational student, but neither used such a visa on their subsequent re-entry into the country.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/911-hijackers-and-student-visas/
 
I accept your admission that you misspoke when you insinuated that I said we deserved 9/11.

What caused 9/11?

A failure to vet the hijackers when they entered the USA to the standard that cons demand of the current administration.


one of the 19 9/11 hijackers came to the U.S. on a student visa, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. That one was Hani Hanjour, a Saudi Arabian terrorist who piloted the plane that was flown into the Pentagon, according to a 2004 staff report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. In his student visa application, Hanjour provided paperwork showing that he was enrolled in an English as a second language program in Oakland, Calif., but he never attended after arriving in America (a fact that would draw scrutiny today). He did not, however, overstay his student visa.

Of the other 18 9/11 hijackers, 14 came to the United States on six-month tourist visas and four came on business visas, according to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Once in the U.S., two of the hijack pilots applied to have their immigration status changed to vocational student, but neither used such a visa on their subsequent re-entry into the country.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/911-hijackers-and-student-visas/
Oh, I see. It's YOU who thinks we deserved it. Hmmmm, so maybe if we had some kind of system in place like, oh, I don't know...maybe if we had a moratorium on visas and immigration from certain regions of the world until we could track down and vet the ones that ARE here, 9/11 might not have happened? Okay, I'll buy that. But maybe I have to spell it out for you. WHAT WERE THE 19 ISLAMIC TERRORISTS TOLD, OR WHAT DID THEY BELIEVE, THAT MADE THEM THINK IT WAS NECESSARY TO FLY 2 AIRLINERS INTO THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, KILLING OVER 3,000 AMERICANS ON AMERICAN SOIL, AND BASICALLY STARTING 2 WARS?
 
Oh, I see. It's YOU who thinks we deserved it. Hmmmm, so maybe if we had some kind of system in place like, oh, I don't know...maybe if we had a moratorium on visas and immigration from certain regions of the world until we could track down and vet the ones that ARE here, 9/11 might not have happened? Okay, I'll buy that. But maybe I have to spell it out for you. WHAT WERE THE 19 ISLAMIC TERRORISTS TOLD, OR WHAT DID THEY BELIEVE, THAT MADE THEM THINK IT WAS NECESSARY TO FLY 2 AIRLINERS INTO THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, KILLING OVER 3,000 AMERICANS ON AMERICAN SOIL, AND BASICALLY STARTING 2 WARS?

So many false assumptions here...

I told you what I thought the cause of 9/11 was. It was a failure of intelligence. I didn't say "we deserved it".

BTW, we do have a moratorium on issuing visas to people known or suspected to have terrorist or criminal backgrounds. That wouldn't necessarily have stopped 9/11 even if we could magically go back in time and put it into operation. Terrorists seem to be good at finding a way to infiltrate places they want to go.

Do some research. http://www.cbp.gov/trade/trade-community/programs-outreach/blocked-denied-debarred

Your angry all-caps shouting in red is ridiculous. You look like an emotional child to me.

Those people are dead. If you want to hold a seance and interview them, be my guest.

They didn't start 2 wars, either. Most of them were Saudis. We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Oh, I see. It's YOU who thinks we deserved it. Hmmmm, so maybe if we had some kind of system in place like, oh, I don't know...maybe if we had a moratorium on visas and immigration from certain regions of the world until we could track down and vet the ones that ARE here, 9/11 might not have happened? Okay, I'll buy that. But maybe I have to spell it out for you. WHAT WERE THE 19 ISLAMIC TERRORISTS TOLD, OR WHAT DID THEY BELIEVE, THAT MADE THEM THINK IT WAS NECESSARY TO FLY 2 AIRLINERS INTO THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, KILLING OVER 3,000 AMERICANS ON AMERICAN SOIL, AND BASICALLY STARTING 2 WARS?

You know, myself and others were mocked and derided shortly after 9/11 when the question was 'why did they attack us? was going around.

What we said was this: radical Islam has one sole objective. They want a global caliphate; furthermore, they consider it a religious and spiritual imperative. Whatever else they claim, is fluff and or propaganda intended for gullible western ears.

Fast forward 14 years and what do we have? An Islamic caliphate that has taken root in the M.E. There is no 'stop fighting them and they will go away'. Abandon Israel, it won't matter. Adopt strict isolationist policies, it won't matter to them one bit.

They won't stop until they are crushed.
 
Better volunteer to fight them over there before they invade the hollers of West By God Virginny, Nurse.

Maybe the Christian militias in Syria could use a corpsman, lol. :thup:

We can just have you interview them with your stunning, insightful muslime questions

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahshahahahahahahahaha
 
We can just have you interview them with your stunning, insightful muslime
questions

What would you suggest?

Q: Are you from one of ILAs' regions?
A: No.

Q: Are you from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Africa, Saudi Arabja, or Israel?
A: No.

alrighty-then-hello-celebimpersonation-628.gif

I don't favor banning a religion. I favor banning a region.

Pretty simple actually. No immigration from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Africa, Saudi Arabja, Israel etc.
 
You know, myself and others were mocked and derided shortly after 9/11 when the question was 'why did they attack us? was going around.

What we said was this: radical Islam has one sole objective. They want a global caliphate; furthermore, they consider it a religious and spiritual imperative. Whatever else they claim, is fluff and or propaganda intended for gullible western ears.

Fast forward 14 years and what do we have? An Islamic caliphate that has taken root in the M.E. There is no 'stop fighting them and they will go away'. Abandon Israel, it won't matter. Adopt strict isolationist policies, it won't matter to them one bit.

They won't stop until they are crushed.
This is what I was trying to get the troll to say.:good4u:
 
You know, myself and others were mocked and derided shortly after 9/11 when the question was 'why did they attack us? was going around.

What we said was this: radical Islam has one sole objective. They want a global caliphate; furthermore, they consider it a religious and spiritual imperative. Whatever else they claim, is fluff and or propaganda intended for gullible western ears.

Fast forward 14 years and what do we have? An Islamic caliphate that has taken root in the M.E. There is no 'stop fighting them and they will go away'. Abandon Israel, it won't matter. Adopt strict isolationist policies, it won't matter to them one bit.

They won't stop until they are crushed.

A caliphate is not a caliphate just because ISIS says it's a caliphate.
 
the caliphate is the organizing principle of ISIS -it's why it exists

In his 2007 book, Islamic Imperialism: A History Efraim Karsh explains the concept's origin
Worldwide caliphate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_caliphate
As a universal religion, Islam envisages a global political order in which all humankind will live under Muslim rule as either believers or subject communities. In order to achieve this goal it is incumbent on all free, male, adult Muslims to carry out an uncompromising struggle "in the path of Allah", or jihad. This in turn makes those parts of the world that have not yet been conquered by the House of Islam an abode of permanent conflict (Dar al-Harb, the "house of war") which will only end with Islam's eventual triumph.

++
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_eschatology#Mahdi
Sunni Islam has derived religious authority from the caliphate, who was in turn appointed by the companions of Muhammad at his death. The Sunnis view the Mahdi as the successor of Mohammad, the Mahdi is expected to arrive to rule the world and reestablish righteousnes
 
A caliphate is not a caliphate just because ISIS says it's a caliphate.

Well bloody hell, what the frick is it then lol?

I guess we can take to calling it 'the non-Islamic Entity'. And The Entity is ruled by mis-understanders of Islam.

Too much energy is wasted on word games when it comes to this subject and any of the three Republican contenders will put an end to it if elected president. It's one of the main reason I'm voting for whoever it turns out to be.
 
the caliphate is the organizing principle of ISIS -it's why it exists

In his 2007 book, Islamic Imperialism: A History Efraim Karsh explains the concept's origin
Worldwide caliphate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_caliphate
As a universal religion, Islam envisages a global political order in which all humankind will live under Muslim rule as either believers or subject communities. In order to achieve this goal it is incumbent on all free, male, adult Muslims to carry out an uncompromising struggle "in the path of Allah", or jihad. This in turn makes those parts of the world that have not yet been conquered by the House of Islam an abode of permanent conflict (Dar al-Harb, the "house of war") which will only end with Islam's eventual triumph.

++
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_eschatology#Mahdi
Sunni Islam has derived religious authority from the caliphate, who was in turn appointed by the companions of Muhammad at his death. The Sunnis view the Mahdi as the successor of Mohammad, the Mahdi is expected to arrive to rule the world and reestablish righteousnes

Just like in the sci-fi movie, Dune lol.

What's amazing is the information in Wiki is so easily discovered and so difficult to to refute; but it's like nobody believes it. Well, hardly anyone on the left believes it and if the State Department believes it they're afraid to say so.

Many people actually prefer to think we and/or the West are somehow responsible for radical Islam and their totalitarian proclivities. I guess, since we are responsible, then that means we can make it go away if we just stop doing this or start doing that.

The ugly truth is the West is in an existential struggle with radical Islam and it's going to remain that way regardless of what we do or don't do with them or for them. Even in Europe it's finally starting to dawn on people.

And as is so often the case, I wish the left was right.
 
Well bloody hell, what the frick is it then lol?

I guess we can take to calling it 'the non-Islamic Entity'. And The Entity is ruled by mis-understanders of Islam.

Too much energy is wasted on word games when it comes to this subject and any of the three Republican contenders will put an end to it if elected president. It's one of the main reason I'm voting for whoever it turns out to be.

The head of a real caliphate is chosen, not self-designated. It's a process, not a bragging right. Words mean something.

"...standard Arabian practice during the early Caliphates was for the prominent men of a kinship group, or tribe, to gather after a leader's death and elect a leader from amongst themselves, although there was no specified procedure for this shura, or consultative assembly. Candidates were usually from the same lineage as the deceased leader, but they were not necessarily his sons. Capable men who would lead well were preferred over an ineffectual direct heir, as there was no basis in the majority Sunni view that the head of state or governor should be chosen based on lineage alone...

Sunni Muslims developed the belief that the caliph is a temporal political ruler, appointed to rule within the bounds of Islamic law (Sharia). The job of adjudicating orthodoxy and Islamic law was left to Islamic lawyers, judiciary, or specialists individually termed as Mujtahids and collectively named the Ulema....

Shia Muslims believe in the Imamate, in which the rulers are Imams divinely chosen, infallible, and sinless from Muhammad's family – Ahl al-Bayt literally "People of the House (of Muhammad)" regardless of majority opinion, shura or election....

A candidate for caliph must meet the conditions described in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, which are as follows:

  1. He must be a Muslim.
  2. He must be an adult (past puberty)
  3. He must be male.
  4. He must be sane.
  5. He must be just (عادل 'aadil).
  6. He must not be a faasiq (فاسق), that is, someone publicly known to be a sinner.He must be capable of carrying the responsibility of a Caliph.
The right to choose a leader belongs to the Muslim public, generally known as the Muslim Ummah (أمة مسلمة) referring to all Muslims as a single group. The non-Muslim residents of the caliphate do not have any voice in this matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate
 
Back
Top