Red Mosquito

stip wrote:

turned2black wrote:

track11 wrote:

turned2black wrote:track11, I find your point about Wahhabism to be a bit disingenuous. While there's no doubt the Saudis help fuel ISIS and other terrorist organizations. Iran and the other countries you suggested we all take a fun family holiday to have long histories of funding outside terrorist organizations and eliminating decesent within their own borders. While I know Iran isn't as bad as some (myself included) have portrayed it in the past (I swear FOX has used the same "Death to America!" clip for the past 10 years), they still harbor known terrorists and there's a sizable segment of the population that harbors ill will towards the U.S. and Western ideals. For you to suggest that these countries "love Americans" is BS.

Although I am willing to concede that pounding some royal palaces in Saudi Arabia into dust would do a lot more to curb terrorism than airstrikes in Syria or sanctions against Iran.

There is a BIG difference between supporting Hezbollah (Iran) and supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda (Saudis). Gigantic. I don't view Hezbollah as a threat to the USA homeland at all. In fact, I believe the US has taken Hezbollah off our terror threat list. Now, if we go and put troops and military barracks in Beirut, you better believe Hezbollah will go after them with a vengeance, because they know our true loyalty ain't with Lebanon. But they aren't sending suicide bombers to the US to indiscriminately kill civilians.

There are no ideal options. We just so happen to continually pick the absolute worst options!

But you have to see that it's a little disturbing that terrorism is seen as a reasonable response, whether in the U.S. or not.

Is attacking troops in a military base really terrorism?

turned2black wrote:

stip wrote:

turned2black wrote:

track11 wrote:

turned2black wrote:track11, I find your point about Wahhabism to be a bit disingenuous. While there's no doubt the Saudis help fuel ISIS and other terrorist organizations. Iran and the other countries you suggested we all take a fun family holiday to have long histories of funding outside terrorist organizations and eliminating decesent within their own borders. While I know Iran isn't as bad as some (myself included) have portrayed it in the past (I swear FOX has used the same "Death to America!" clip for the past 10 years), they still harbor known terrorists and there's a sizable segment of the population that harbors ill will towards the U.S. and Western ideals. For you to suggest that these countries "love Americans" is BS.

Although I am willing to concede that pounding some royal palaces in Saudi Arabia into dust would do a lot more to curb terrorism than airstrikes in Syria or sanctions against Iran.

There is a BIG difference between supporting Hezbollah (Iran) and supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda (Saudis). Gigantic. I don't view Hezbollah as a threat to the USA homeland at all. In fact, I believe the US has taken Hezbollah off our terror threat list. Now, if we go and put troops and military barracks in Beirut, you better believe Hezbollah will go after them with a vengeance, because they know our true loyalty ain't with Lebanon. But they aren't sending suicide bombers to the US to indiscriminately kill civilians.

There are no ideal options. We just so happen to continually pick the absolute worst options!

But you have to see that it's a little disturbing that terrorism is seen as a reasonable response, whether in the U.S. or not.

Is attacking troops in a military base really terrorism?

Are you fucking serious?

turned2black wrote:Hezbollah has a long history of suicide bombings at training camps, military installations and embassies. Do you really think these aren't terrorist acts?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:If ISIL started regularly carrying out suicide bombings here in the us, I wonder how many of you tree hugging hippies would keep your same ideals when you couldn't go get your Starbucks without pissing your pants in fear?

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:If ISIL started regularly carrying out suicide bombings here in the us, I wonder how many of you tree hugging hippies would keep your same ideals when you couldn't go get your Starbucks without pissing your pants in fear?

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

stip wrote:If the United States bombed an Isis barracks would that be terrorism?

turned2black wrote:I really hope stip's line of work doesn't see him in a position to influence young, impressionable minds.

McParadigm wrote:

stip wrote:If the United States bombed an Isis barracks would that be terrorism?

I wouldn't give a shit that it is. I only give a shit that it doesn't work. It's a dumb solution because it's like removing a crack in the ice by stomping on it. The first 30 times, I guess you could say it was a learning process, but at this point it's just full retard.

stip wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

stip wrote:If the United States bombed an Isis barracks would that be terrorism?

I wouldn't give a shit that it is. I only give a shit that it doesn't work. It's a dumb solution because it's like removing a crack in the ice by stomping on it. The first 30 times, I guess you could say it was a learning process, but at this point it's just full retard.

That was directed at t2b. I'm in complete agreement with you

stip wrote:Although what if the crack was an evil crack?

stip wrote:

stip wrote:Actually this is probably the only forum where we are not regularly at odds with each other