The Left kills children by letting Terrorists in the UK Terror Attack should be a Wake Up Call

Just for the record I hate conservatives.

But I REALLY F'ING HATE liberals.

a reply to: Catalina22

You will know in the future to check who authored the thread ..to save yourself some time, If you dig in though, and read some replies you will see that not all are morally bankrupt..IE use a tragedy to further their bovine scatology.

So much garbage here in this thread. Finding justification in terrorist attacks is ignorant.
I understand the butt hurt that is caused by our foreign policies. I have said now forever that the "War on terror is a war that cannot be one with military means. And its not even a war on terror anymore. More like a war to increase terror.When you destabilize a country and force regime change, something must fill the void.
Look at Iraq, Lybia, and Syria. How many have perished because we don't like who is in charge of this or that country. So we fund rebels to disrupt and destabilize. We went from creating Al Qaeda in Afganistan, to fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq , to supporting Al Qaeda in Syria.
Tell me how doing this has made the people of these countries safer? How many terrorist bombings have occurred since 911? Has it increased or decreased? My money is on the former.

These policies have only increased the hate toward the west. So why does the west continue to stay the course? If this type of policy is only increasing the number of terror attacks by fostering the seeds of hate and molding them into a destabilizing force, How can this type of policy be called a success in the war on terror?
Because its not. There is more than meets the eye going on here than what we are being led to believe.

This is about one thing and one thing only money and oil. (ok two things but they count as one)Period.
Take a look at the countries that tried to drop the dollar and look what happened to them.

Lybia: What Lybia was all about.

Iraq: What Iraq was all about.

Syria: What part of the Syria thing is all about.

Those who have eyes wide open, see the reality of it and are closing their hearts to the rhetoric being preached to us.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

That plan is awful. It distills defeating ISIS down to a simple bullet point when everyone involved in the military at any time in their life knows that such a feat isn't so simple.

We have been bombing and profiling Muslims for 15 years now..how is that war on terror going?

I mean the terrorists are getting plenty of what they want...an increasing police state, scared western democracies attacking their own foundational principles of equality and religious tolerance, rising demagogues affirming their rhetoric of a world war by the west against all Muslims. Hell they don't even have to plan attacks from caves in Afghanistan anymore...Teens that weren't even born when 9-11 happened are coming of age watching Western Leaders say all Muslims should be banned and family members of terrorists should be droned to send a message.

It's folks on this thread screaming about all 1.8 BILLION Muslims of the world should be banned, jailed, profiled, arrested, monitored yada yada..that are promoting ISIS's propaganda.

a reply to: PainGod

Origins aside, it is a problem the West inherited that clearly needs to be dealt with. I noticed you offered little in regard to solutions.

An incredibly complex issue that can hardly be properly addressed, that said, If it were me I'd shut down the borders to unstable countries. The US has tried to do this, but have been blocked by activist judges who are in my opinion globalist shills and terror apologists.

Set up refuge camps until the regions are stabilized. I also think (a very unpopular opinion) a coalition should help stabilize the affected regions and murder the sh!t out of ISIS. And give the people back their OWN countries, which is what the want anyway, as they do no assimilate.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

I thought being politically incorrect was the cool thing to do nowadays? Shouldn't them joking about it be applauded seeing as how it is so politically incorrect to do so?

Also, where did a CBS reporter make fun of the victims?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Wardaddy454

I thought being politically incorrect was the cool thing to do nowadays? Shouldn't them joking about it be applauded seeing as how it is so politically incorrect to do so?

Also, where did a CBS reporter make fun of the victims?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

That plan is awful. It distills defeating ISIS down to a simple bullet point when everyone involved in the military at any time in their life knows that such a feat isn't so simple.

We have been bombing and profiling Muslims for 15 years now..how is that war on terror going?

I mean the terrorists are getting plenty of what they want...an increasing police state, scared western democracies attacking their own foundational principles of equality and religious tolerance, rising demagogues affirming their rhetoric of a world war by the west against all Muslims. Hell they don't even have to plan attacks from caves in Afghanistan anymore...Teens that weren't even born when 9-11 happened are coming of age watching Western Leaders say all Muslims should be banned and family members of terrorists should be droned to send a message.

It's folks on this thread screaming about all 1.8 BILLION Muslims of the world should be banned, jailed, profiled, arrested, monitored yada yada..that are promoting ISIS's propaganda.

How would you suggest we play this game then? ... useless crybaby, you sound like you need a bottle and a crib.

a reply to: User1138
No easy solution to be had here I agree. How do we stop extremists from using the refugee trail as a logistical line by which they use to go and attack the countries harboring them. The more they attack the countries that house the refugees the more those countries are going to close their boarders to those refugees.

"The left kills children by..."

Stopped reading there. Scoring partisan points on the back of dead children is disgusting. Shame on you.

a reply to: LABTECH767


Yeah, there's the left, and then there's the place where the left meets the left-hand path. They are two lefts. There's Katy Perry and Jay Z and Hillary Clinton and John Podesta and all those homies, and then there are honest, hard-working, family values loving leftist Democrats who don't worship at the alter of Satan or Moloch or Baal.

The non spirit-cooking left, is the better left by far.

It's important to draw the distinction so that there can remain an in-Satanic left that hasn't been hijacked by the devil worshippers and the wicked.

Saul Alinsky, he dedicated his book "Rules for Radicals" to the devil.

Then there's Podesta and his proclivities.

And all or many of the Celebs of Hollywood (did you know that the Druids wand for casting spells was made of Holly wood?).

But just because the head and the voice is aligned with evil and wickedness doesn't mean that the rest of the body isn't perfectly fine.. er..

a reply to: Stevemagegod

Point Of Fact from a stand point of "DENYING IGNORANCE" it was the right wing ethos that started the whole mess in the first place?



Foresight from THE LEFT...

"A political price" and a human one.

originally posted by: UKTruth
ISIS is not in vast swathes of land in their country... nor do they control much of the borders.

Wiping them out still can't be distilled down to a simple bullet point. It has taken years to tackle the ISIS threat and may take a few more years to eliminate them (and that's not even talking about the inevitable brand new terrorist organization that will inevitably step into the power vacuum). All those people in harms way will remain in harms way until it is over and you don't have a problem with that. In fact, you tell me that is a better solution than helping those who want to flee that situation.

Like I said, your alternative plan is to shift an entire population out of a country and plant them somewhere else. Lunacy.

I said nothing of the sort. The refugee population isn't the entire population of the country.

The people involved have the plan based on the facts on the ground and are actively negotiating with Russia and several countries in the middle east. Probably best to let those who have been tasked with sorting this out to get on with their job, at least until it has had a chance, as opposed to clearing house unnecessarily with some mass migration across continents.

I SERIOUSLY doubt the competency of the Trump admin. Your words and blind trust here mean nothing to me.

a reply to: UKTruth

Unfortunately you are still unable to accept the basic fact that there plenty of areas of Syria that are not in ISIS crossfire as you put it. So whine from the sidelines all you want, meanwhile 4 safe zones have already been set up and as soon as the US, Saudi and France get assurances from Russia and Turkey about the enforcement and implementation of these zones, they will become operational.

What the hell does this mean? Wars are rarely if ever fought over 100% of the country's territory. Of course there are still areas of the country untouched by it. Don't be stupid. Stating the obvious like that doesn't magically make the people who ARE in harms way situation any better.

Trump, Putin and Erdogan are having to clean up the mess and it's Trump trying to properly engage other ME countries and NATO to make sure the resources can be found to help the people of Syria. For all his so called hatred of Muslims and isolationism, he has done more in his first 100 days to move this along than Obama did since he created the mess in the first place. He's actually trying to solve the problem and your response is to accuse people of hating Muslims because they don't agree with dumb idea of uprooting an entire population with no checks or balances on who exactly is flooding out the country.

I'll agree with you there. Trump has done more that Obama to make the situation on the ground FAR worse by creating yet ANOTHER competing faction for control of the ground there further endangering the populace.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
ISIS is not in vast swathes of land in their country... nor do they control much of the borders.

Wiping them out still can't be distilled down to a simple bullet point. It has taken years to tackle the ISIS threat and may take a few more years to eliminate them (and that's not even talking about the inevitable brand new terrorist organization that will inevitably step into the power vacuum). All those people in harms way will remain in harms way until it is over and you don't have a problem with that. In fact, you tell me that is a better solution than helping those who want to flee that situation.

Like I said, your alternative plan is to shift an entire population out of a country and plant them somewhere else. Lunacy.

I said nothing of the sort. The refugee population isn't the entire population of the country.

The people involved have the plan based on the facts on the ground and are actively negotiating with Russia and several countries in the middle east. Probably best to let those who have been tasked with sorting this out to get on with their job, at least until it has had a chance, as opposed to clearing house unnecessarily with some mass migration across continents.

I SERIOUSLY doubt the competency of the Trump admin. Your words and blind trust here mean nothing to me.

You are not going to get the full plan on how ISIS will be defeated, nor should you.

Just like my 'words and blind trust' mean nothing to you, your doubt about the plan means nothing to me, and I am sure means nothing to the people actually working with the detail. For the record, 'my words and blind trust' are nothing more than an acceptance that something new has to be tried and a willingness to wait and see if the Trump administration can make this work. I do have zero doubt that a goal of stabilising Syria and allowing their people to stay in their country is a far better goal than a mass exodus.

They have a job to do and responding to second guessing would be a waste of their time and focus.

As for the refugee population - how big is it? Do you have a number? Do you have a crystal ball on the future, or do you want just an unknown number and a constant stream of refugees being migrated as needed until they decide the country is ok for them to live in? Who is not a refugee... ISIS fighters/supporters? I thought the conditions were inhumane and in danger of ISIS crossfire... why would anyone not be a refugee in those circumstances?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

That plan is awful. It distills defeating ISIS down to a simple bullet point when everyone involved in the military at any time in their life knows that such a feat isn't so simple.

We have been bombing and profiling Muslims for 15 years now..how is that war on terror going?

I mean the terrorists are getting plenty of what they want...an increasing police state, scared western democracies attacking their own foundational principles of equality and religious tolerance, rising demagogues affirming their rhetoric of a world war by the west against all Muslims. Hell they don't even have to plan attacks from caves in Afghanistan anymore...Teens that weren't even born when 9-11 happened are coming of age watching Western Leaders say all Muslims should be banned and family members of terrorists should be droned to send a message.

It's folks on this thread screaming about all 1.8 BILLION Muslims of the world should be banned, jailed, profiled, arrested, monitored yada yada..that are promoting ISIS's propaganda.

I know, right? Even George W. Bush EXPLICITLY didn't want to condemn all Muslims along with the ones who attacked us during 9/11. It's so sad how far we've fallen into the realm of bigotry since then.

originally posted by: UKTruth
You are not going to get the full plan on how ISIS will be defeated, nor should you.

Full plan? That isn't even a partial plan. It's barely a wish. Let alone a plan. LOL!

Just like my 'words and blind trust' mean nothing to you, your doubt about the plan means nothing to me, and I am sure means nothing to the people actually working with the detail. For the record, 'my words and blind trust' are nothing more than an acceptance that something new has to be tried and a willingness to wait and see if the Trump administration can make this work. I do have zero doubt that a goal of stabilising Syria and allowing their people to stay in their country is a far better goal than a mass exodus.

Eh... It's just more of the same, "war them into submission" bull# we've been trying for the last 16 or so years. There's a reason I doubt it will work. The War on Terror has created an international game of terrorist wack-a-mole. And Trump is continuing that tradition, and you are pretending like this is something new. Uh... No. This is Iraq and Afghanistan ALL over again.

As for the refugee population - how big is it? Do you have a number? Do you have a crystal ball on the future, or do you want just an unknown number and a constant stream of refugees being migrated as needed until they decide the country is ok for them to live in? Who is not a refugee... ISIS fighters/supporters? I thought the conditions were inhumane and in danger of ISIS crossfire... why would anyone not be a refugee in those circumstances?

I don't care how big the number ends up being. Helping people in distress shouldn't have a limit. It should just be done because it is the right thing to do.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Unfortunately you are still unable to accept the basic fact that there plenty of areas of Syria that are not in ISIS crossfire as you put it. So whine from the sidelines all you want, meanwhile 4 safe zones have already been set up and as soon as the US, Saudi and France get assurances from Russia and Turkey about the enforcement and implementation of these zones, they will become operational.

What the hell does this mean? Wars are rarely if ever fought over 100% of the country's territory. Of course there are still areas of the country untouched by it. Don't be stupid. Stating the obvious like that doesn't magically make the people who ARE in harms way situation any better.

Trump, Putin and Erdogan are having to clean up the mess and it's Trump trying to properly engage other ME countries and NATO to make sure the resources can be found to help the people of Syria. For all his so called hatred of Muslims and isolationism, he has done more in his first 100 days to move this along than Obama did since he created the mess in the first place. He's actually trying to solve the problem and your response is to accuse people of hating Muslims because they don't agree with dumb idea of uprooting an entire population with no checks or balances on who exactly is flooding out the country.

I'll agree with you there. Trump has done more that Obama to make the situation on the ground FAR worse by creating yet ANOTHER competing faction for control of the ground there further endangering the populace.

The safe areas in the country are being explicitly identified.. it is not just a case of some areas not being involved in the fighting. They have to be zoned and protected. The people in harms way can and will be moved to those areas. That is part of the strategy and the nature of the discussion so far makes that obvious. It was you who said that people would be caught in crossfire in Syria as an argument to suggest they had to leave the entire country. That was nonsense.

Squawk all you like about how much worse the Trump admin is making things - the reality does not support you. ISIS are being driven back, Turkey have already declared 1,000's of square miles now safe, more safe areas (4 more) have been tentatively agreed. The person actually leading this is General Mattis. Unless he has all of a sudden become useless just because Trump is President, then you should heed what he is saying on this subject.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
You are not going to get the full plan on how ISIS will be defeated, nor should you.

Full plan? That isn't even a partial plan. It's barely a wish. Let alone a plan. LOL!

Just like my 'words and blind trust' mean nothing to you, your doubt about the plan means nothing to me, and I am sure means nothing to the people actually working with the detail. For the record, 'my words and blind trust' are nothing more than an acceptance that something new has to be tried and a willingness to wait and see if the Trump administration can make this work. I do have zero doubt that a goal of stabilising Syria and allowing their people to stay in their country is a far better goal than a mass exodus.

Eh... It's just more of the same, "war them into submission" bull# we've been trying for the last 16 or so years. There's a reason I doubt it will work. The War on Terror has created an international game of terrorist wack-a-mole. And Trump is continuing that tradition, and you are pretending like this is something new. Uh... No. This is Iraq and Afghanistan ALL over again.

As for the refugee population - how big is it? Do you have a number? Do you have a crystal ball on the future, or do you want just an unknown number and a constant stream of refugees being migrated as needed until they decide the country is ok for them to live in? Who is not a refugee... ISIS fighters/supporters? I thought the conditions were inhumane and in danger of ISIS crossfire... why would anyone not be a refugee in those circumstances?

I don't care how big the number ends up being. Helping people in distress shouldn't have a limit. It should just be done because it is the right thing to do.

You are not going to see a full plan - that does not mean there is not one. Like I said, you'd have to assume that General Mattis is now an idiot and not planning anything to take your doubt as anything other than partisan nonsense.

You can panic about a new Afghanistan all you like - but you should really stop because it ALREADY IS. Just because it is not US soldiers bogged down, doesn't make the situation is any different on the ground. The goal is not one of stopping a new Afghanistan, rather stabilising Syria.

You might not care about how big the number of refugees is.. and it's clear you have not thought it through... but anyone serious about relocating refugees would have a view on this. You just jumped to an emotional solution to make you feel better, regardless of whether it is the best thing to do. Your own words confirm that. Meanwhile experience military leaders are working with the state department and in concert with an increasing number of allies to implement the solution they feel is the best one... the Trump administration's plan. Trump is the President and Commander in chief, duly elected to make these decisions. If he fails, he should be criticised, but this operation to clean up Obama's mess is just beginning.

originally posted by: UKTruth
The safe areas in the country are being explicitly identified.. it is not just a case of some areas not being involved in the fighting. They have to be zoned and protected. The people in harms way can and will be moved to those areas. That is part of the strategy and the nature of the discussion so far makes that obvious. It was you who said that people would be caught in crossfire in Syria as an argument to suggest they had to leave the entire country. That was nonsense.

So what of the people who don't want to relocate to these safe zones and want to flee the country to get away from all of it? Those people are called refugees and they aren't going to magically disappear and not exist just because you designate safe zones. That country is still a war zone and anyone can tell you that safe zones don't always remain safe.

Squawk all you like about how much worse the Trump admin is making things - the reality does not support you. ISIS are being driven back, Turkey have already declared 1,000's of square miles now safe, more safe areas (4 more) have been tentatively agreed. The person actually leading this is General Mattis. Unless he has all of a sudden become useless just because Trump is President, then you should heed what he is saying on this subject.

Clearly you are missing my point. You can kill ISIS (they were going to die to whatever administration took over last November anyways) but that doesn't stop the problem. Another group springs up to replace them and we start this stupid song-and-dance all over again. Do you not remember Al Qaeda? The Taliban?

We, as a country, are doing nothing to sooth relations between fundamentalist Muslims and the West. We just continually feed into the cycle of violence. Then back home we promote hatred and intolerance towards Muslims which in turn feeds the terrorism machine. Trump's policies are NOTORIOUSLY anti-Muslim and he even campaigned on such ideas. To think that you could argue that I should be satisfied with merely JUST military action against terrorism is naive and laughable. The situation is FAR more complicated than just a hammer and nail situation.