Obama defends the Isis jobs comment with "kill them with kindness".

Bin Laden needed a job?

Most of this stuff is Wahhabi sectarian ideologues

has little to do with economic issues

The rich Wahhabis out of Qatar and Saudi have fueled this rotten sect of sectarian ignoramuses.

The Prophet in a Hadith said the devil would rule Arabia
The house of Saud and its Wahhabi Salafi madness is that devil

a reply to: nwtrucker

Rush Limbaugh is covering this topic today exposing the Obama "double-speak", "straw-man arguements" and lies with the truth so I will edit this reply with link to transcript when they post it later today.

a reply to: jimmyx

You make a very good point. I am not a happy camper at the thought of U.S. boots on the ground against Isis.

There comes a point when as distasteful as a chore might be one gets it done. I'm not sure we have reached that point, either.

I would, however, like to see a little less stress on avoiding 'collateral damage' and much stronger air attacks. Given a choice between our guys dying and more of theirs...it's no contest..

On Bush, I'm convinced there were no 'good choices' after 9/11. I believe he made the least worst choice. My beef with Bush is in the prosecution of that war and the result, not the intent..just my opinion, though.

a reply to: infinityorder

The "appeasement doctrine" meme virus that has infected the right-wing brains is nothing more than a ridiculous justification for waging an endless series of wars in a delusional and misguided belief that we can reshape the world the way we want it by force. Anything short of war is "pussified."

The only reason that you're making Nazi analogies is because you want to invoke a popular war. If you were such a student of history, you'd realize that 99% of our military interventions haven't actually improved anything.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: nwtrucker

This is the leadership that America voted (twice) for.

I don't have much to say other than, perhaps the leadership is a reflection of America. So we deserve whatever we get.

*shakes head and hops away*

what part of bush's leadership worked so well for America?.... I'd much rather see Arab soldiers fighting against these ISIS a** holes than our own American servicemen. I guess you don't

What part of my statement is incorrect?

well good...I guess I was wrong in the implied meaning of your actual words...I'm glad you support Obama in what he said, and I do apologize for thinking you were making a cynical statement.

originally posted by: Granite
a reply to: nwtrucker

Rush Limbaugh is covering this topic today exposing the Obama "double-speak", "straw-man arguements" and lies with the truth so I will edit this reply with link to transcript when they post it later today.

Yes. Nobody should miss their propaganda booster. Rush Limbaugh makes a living by telling wingnuts what wingnuts want to hear. Obama has credibility issues but Limbaugh has made a profession out of disinformation. Suck it down and share it with your friends!

Why isn't this in the rant forum?

There isn't even a link in the OP, but that doesn't seem to stop posters from seeing red every time they see the word "Obama" and then start their own rant.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: jimmyx

You make a very good point. I am not a happy camper at the thought of U.S. boots on the ground against Isis.

There comes a point when as distasteful as a chore might be one gets it done. I'm not sure we have reached that point, either.

I would, however, like to see a little less stress on avoiding 'collateral damage' and much stronger air attacks. Given a choice between our guys dying and more of theirs...it's no contest..

On Bush, I'm convinced there were no 'good choices' after 9/11. I believe he made the least worst choice. My beef with Bush is in the prosecution of that war and the result, not the intent..just my opinion, though.

I agree...you can't kill terror or the idea of "jihad" with military power...to me, after ISIS, then what will it be next?...what group will rise up?......the United States will now be in a continual war with no ending. we have achieved Orwells' world in "1984"...the only thing different is the scenery and sets.

a reply to: nwtrucker

So, I watched him yesterday and I have decided that, bear with me here, there is some progress.

He is getting worse, that is change. Change which appears to be grabbing the attention of even the most devout Obamites.

Change which can only bring about the necessary corrective societal backlash which we have all been patiently awaiting but, as yet, have not seen.

Change is hope.

"Credibility issues"?

I think his last ounce was used-up when he was an infant in Indonesia...

Have a listen the last hour on air write now.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Granite
a reply to: nwtrucker

Rush Limbaugh is covering this topic today exposing the Obama "double-speak", "straw-man arguements" and lies with the truth so I will edit this reply with link to transcript when they post it later today.

Yes. Nobody should miss their propaganda booster. Rush Limbaugh makes a living by telling wingnuts what wingnuts want to hear. Obama has credibility issues but Limbaugh has made a profession out of disinformation. Suck it down and share it with your friends!

a reply to: nwtrucker

OK. Then you give me a better description/label for "kill them with kindness"

Sure,

Doublespeak

Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms, in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language

What it is Americans like to say?, Humanitarian Bombing LOL.

Anyway, call it what you like, but this is what appeasement in the political sense actualy is and the context behind it.

Appeasement

Appeasement in a political context is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an enemy power in order to avoid conflict

The Obama/Progressive/Academic-MSM supporters are having trouble justifying the Obama/Progressive/Academic-MSM war machine.

It is extremely dangerous when thinkers have trouble analyzing.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

Try Winston Churchill.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Basically, Obama's entire demeanor where the ME and radicals has been concerned has been to be nice to them and give them more or less everything they want. We can see the results.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Dabrazzo

Try Winston Churchill.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Basically, Obama's entire demeanor where the ME and radicals has been concerned has been to be nice to them and give them more or less everything they want. We can see the results.

Nonesense, he is currently violating Syrian air space with U.S figher jets in order to bomb them. Do not fall for these types of cheap orwellian lies.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Compared to their 'norm' back home? YES. Five star!

a reply to: Dabrazzo

Hmm, and doing what with those bombings? More appeasement. Just a different collection of people addressed by that 'appeasement'. Members of his own party, the general population of the U.S.. Those fanatical "Christians" who feel targeting them is a war crime.

Seeing the initial, and unless I'm mistaken, following bombings have been at night, when the command teams are long gone from their duties and are at home, no significant result whatsoever. (Also, appeases the collateral damage crowd.)

The only concession to actual 'killing' is leadership target via drones. I have zero problem with drone attacks, not my threads, at all.

originally posted by: nwtrucker


I would, however, like to see a little less stress on avoiding 'collateral damage' and much stronger air attacks. Given a choice between our guys dying and more of theirs...it's no contest..

Wow, let's just nuke the whole region aye, I mean, it's more of 'their' guys and less of 'our' guys...

What an arse.

a reply to: Dabrazzo
From what I see, that validates the use of appeasement. It exactly describes his actions. Doublespeak? Perhaps, that is valid in a more general sense, appeasement further defines the type of doublespeak...so to speak..

a reply to: aorAki

Thank you. Hyperbolic sarcasm noted. Yawn.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: JIMC5499



Now the Italians have a bigger pair than we do. On top of Jordan and now Egypt... Who's next? Not us....

Good. It's nice to see nations in the region trying to take care of the problem for a change. The US should stop changing everyone's diapers so they'll learn how to take care of their own sh1t for a change.