Why do Liberals turn their back to Islamic Terrorism?

[PistolPete]

9/11 took place with no guns and 3000 people died.


Doesn't the President realize that he can unite the country by actually taking some hard line stance on Islamic terrorism?

Obama instead wants to eliminate the weapon the terrorist uses, but not the actual terrorist!

[DonDadda59]

I'm gonna need you to turn in this account too on Nov. 9, Chewing. Just a head's up.

[Bosnian Sajo]

Chewy just can't seem to let go of this place :oldlol:

[imdaman99]

Is this really chewing? :lol

[PistolPete]

I'm gonna need you to turn in this account too on Nov. 9, Chewing. Just a head's up.


Chewing is at the range right now.

[andgar923]

9/11 took place with no guns and 3000 people died.


Doesn't the President realize that he can unite the country by actually taking some hard line stance on Islamic terrorism?

Obama instead wants to eliminate the weapon the terrorist uses, but not the actual terrorist!

So what do conservatives recommend?

Do Conservatives think it's a simple solution that can be fixed by solely banning and bombing them?

To fix the issue one needs to understand WHY the issue exists TODAY and why/how they recruit.

I can tell you right now that the conservative's answer will only make things worse.

Truth is, there is no clear answer because it is very complicated and yes sensitive. It isn't about being "soft" or "tough" it's about being SMART and delicate in approaching the issue.

Here's one key difference in regards to the issue:

Conservatives love to paint a wide brush and point the finger
Liberals tend to be more nuanced because it is a delicate issue and understand that pointing fingers and playing the blame game will only make shit worse.

[nathanjizzle]

there are about 9 million illegal undocumented alligators living within U.S. borders and an attack by one happened on a 2 year old toddler just yesterday. its time to stop turning our backs to the problem and consider a temporary ban on alligators coming into the U.S. until we figure out WHAT THE HELL is going on!

[DonDadda59]

Chewing is at the range right now.

http://imgfave-herokuapp-com.global.ssl.fastly.net/image_cache/1345140615534370.jpg

[konex]

9/11 took place with no guns and 3000 people died.

Yeah and we got the TSA and major airport security. Using your logic, we should still have pre-9/11 airport security because we can't eliminate terrorists :hammerhead:

The fact is, one guy killed 49 and maimed 53 with ONE gun. Take away the semi-automatic rifle and there's no way he slaughters that many people. How many more must die before we wake up?

[PistolPete]

So what do conservatives recommend?

Do Conservatives think it's a simple solution that can be fixed by solely banning and bombing them?

To fix the issue one needs to understand WHY the issue exists TODAY and why/how they recruit.

I can tell you right now that the conservative's answer will only make things worse.

Truth is, there is no clear answer because it is very complicated and yes sensitive. It isn't about being "soft" or "tough" it's about being SMART and delicate in approaching the issue.

Here's one key difference in regards to the issue:

Conservatives love to paint a wide brush and point the finger
Liberals tend to be more nuanced because it is a delicate issue and understand that pointing fingers and playing the blame game will only make shit worse.


Conservatives cannot do anything because they do not hold the power. The power has been held by a Democratic President who has really done nothing to curtail the violence.

Obama can wipe out ISIS in no time, but they refuse. They even refuse to call it Islamic Terrorism!

It's not complicated at all. You stop trying to socially change American way of life and you start dropping some bombs until the last ISIS pig is gone.

You cannot sit there and tell me that the Conservative plan on this is far worse than the Democratic plan, when it's evident that the Dems don't have any!

[DonDadda59]

Conservatives cannot do anything because they do not hold the power. The power has been held by a Democratic President who has really done nothing to curtail the violence.

Obama can wipe out ISIS in no time, but they refuse. They even refuse to call it Islamic Terrorism!

It's not complicated at all. You stop trying to socially change American way of life and you start dropping some bombs until the last ISIS pig is gone.

You cannot sit there and tell me that the Conservative plan on this is far worse than the Democratic plan, when it's evident that the Dems don't have any!

Different account, still the same old ignorant country mouse. :facepalm

http://www.newsweek.com/address-obama-vows-overcome-terrorist-threat-401796

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/us/congress-shows-a-lack-of-enthusiasm-for-giving-obama-war-powers-to-fight-isis.html?_r=0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-isis-war_us_566f47cae4b0fccee16f938b

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/aumf-isis/402017/

^Hell of a plan there, Patrick. Your blind loyalty to a dying, ineffective party that is holding America back in all facets of life is going to cost you your e-life. Hope it was worth it.

[andgar923]

Conservatives cannot do anything because they do not hold the power. The power has been held by a Democratic President who has really done nothing to curtail the violence.

Obama can wipe out ISIS in no time, but they refuse. They even refuse to call it Islamic Terrorism!

It's not complicated at all. You stop trying to socially change American way of life and you start dropping some bombs until the last ISIS pig is gone.

You cannot sit there and tell me that the Conservative plan on this is far worse than the Democratic plan, when it's evident that they don't have any.

I don't say this lightly...

Are you f*ckin retarded!

A. You can't WIPE simply wipe out ISIS, it's far more complicated then just dropping bombs. As a matter of fact, he has killed some key leaders, but even then it isn't simple. They hide within their communities, they hide amongst everyone, it's not as simple as just bombing them.

B. Conservatives created modern day radical Islam. Bush and Bush invaded, bombed and antagonized an entire section of the planet. Which takes us to 'C'...

C. Antagonizing the other side of the world only creates distrust, it allows them to recruit and empowers the sympathizers.

So only idiots with no brain and zero balls talk tough.

Funny how only those that aren't willing to actually do something about it are the ones talking the loudest, what's the term..... chicken hawks.

Trump is the def of a fake tough guy.

[PistolPete]

Don, how can you support a woman who has received, what really should be considered as "blood money" contributions from countries that kill or imprison gay people just for being gay??

Then she has the audacity to go in front of a mic here at home and pretend to be a champion for gay rights. She also wants equal rights for women....uhh but only for women here at home. Cause...you know...the raping and the stoning of women over there is just a "cultural" thing. And we Libs sure don't want to stop your culture! In fact, we want you to bring some of that fine culture over here and mix it up!

[PistolPete]

I don't say this lightly...

Are you f*ckin retarded!

A. You can't WIPE simply wipe out ISIS, it's far more complicated then just dropping bombs. As a matter of fact, he has killed some key leaders, but even then it isn't simple. They hide within their communities, they hide amongst everyone, it's not as simple as just bombing them.

B. Conservatives created modern day radical Islam. Bush and Bush invaded, bombed and antagonized an entire section of the planet. Which takes us to 'C'...

C. Antagonizing the other side of the world only creates distrust, it allows them to recruit and empowers the sympathizers.

So only idiots with no brain and zero balls talk tough.

Funny how only those that aren't willing to actually do something about it are the ones talking the loudest, what's the term..... chicken hawks.

Trump is the def of a fake tough guy.


Clueless ****tard lol.


Saddam had a bigger army and we found that bastard hiding in some foxhole. :oldlol:

So please don't underestimate the might of the U.S. Military.

And it's quite simple actually. You acquire the target whether they're out in the open or hiding in the closet of some family's residence, and you pull the trigger or drop some payload.

It's pacifist pu**y talk like yours that has gotten us into this situation. Clinton was too afraid to kill Bin Laden and now Obama is to afraid to kill some "JV" team as he so nonchalantly put it.


Please. This country needs a leader with some balls.

[DonDadda59]

Don, how can you support a woman who has received, what really should be considered as "blood money" contributions from countries that kill or imprison gay people just for being gay??

Then she has the audacity to go in front of a mic here at home and pretend to be a champion for gay rights. She also wants equal rights for women....uhh but only for women here at home. Cause...you know...the raping and the stoning of women over there is just a "cultural" thing. And we Libs sure don't want to stop your culture! In fact, we want you to bring some of that fine culture over here and mix it up!

Thought this thread was about libs turning their back on Islamic Terrorism. Why the meltdown?

The GOP-controlled Congress whines all day everyday about not doing enough to combat ISIS... Then turns around and refuses to declare war on ISIS.

Now you know why these clowns have approval ratings in the single digits in some recent polls.

But you're riding with them into oblivion.

http://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2016/01/08/635878871872560502-87379949_image.gif

[NumberSix]

So what do conservatives recommend?

Do Conservatives think it's a simple solution that can be fixed by solely banning and bombing them?

To fix the issue one needs to understand WHY the issue exists TODAY and why/how they recruit.

I can tell you right now that the conservative's answer will only make things worse.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of Islamic terror in Japan.

[GINOBILI!]

9/11 took place with no guns and 3000 people died.


Doesn't the President realize that he can unite the country by actually taking some hard line stance on Islamic terrorism?

Obama instead wants to eliminate the weapon the terrorist uses, but not the actual terrorist!
Planes were used in a terror attack = Changes in what can be brought in an airplane
Guns used in terror attack = Changes should be made in gun use laws

[andgar923]

Clueless ****tard lol.


Saddam had a bigger army and we found that bastard hiding in some foxhole. :oldlol:

So please don't underestimate the might of the U.S. Military.

And it's quite simple actually. You acquire the target whether they're out in the open or hiding in the closet of some family's residence, and you pull the trigger or drop some payload.

It's pacifist pu**y talk like yours that has gotten us into this situation. Clinton was too afraid to kill Bin Laden and now Obama is to afraid to kill some "JV" team as he so nonchalantly put it.


Please. This country needs a leader with some balls.
this idiot calling me out, fake tough guy.

Not just a fake tough guy but an idiot at that, comparing Sadaam to ISIS :lol

Sadaam had an army, had targets to attack, an infrastructure that could be pinpointed ISIS not so much.

Fake tough guy acting like you'd go fight them yourself, like it takes balls to sign a document to go fight them. Anyone can easily sign a drone attack and/or send troops. And Obama has already killed/captured some leaders and disrupted some cells. But again, it's not as simple as launching an all out assault on an army since they live all over the world. They have cells that operate underground and live within the general population. What, you gonna launch an attack on an entire Orlando neighborhood?

Gonna wipe out an entire Minnesota Muslim population because you're afraid that one of them may have stated something negative about Trump on Facebook?

Idiot talk like yours is THE reason why extremists exist in the first place, and mentality like yours is the reason they WON'T get destroyed but instead grow. But you're too stupid to understand that.

As for me being a P*ssy, I'd smack the shit outta you in real life, f*ck internet talk

[Dresta]

So what do conservatives recommend?

Do Conservatives think it's a simple solution that can be fixed by solely banning and bombing them?

To fix the issue one needs to understand WHY the issue exists TODAY and why/how they recruit.

I can tell you right now that the conservative's answer will only make things worse.

Truth is, there is no clear answer because it is very complicated and yes sensitive. It isn't about being "soft" or "tough" it's about being SMART and delicate in approaching the issue.

Here's one key difference in regards to the issue:

Conservatives love to paint a wide brush and point the finger
Liberals tend to be more nuanced because it is a delicate issue and understand that pointing fingers and playing the blame game will only make shit worse.



B. Conservatives created modern day radical Islam. Bush and Bush invaded, bombed and antagonized an entire section of the planet. Which takes us to 'C'...

C. Antagonizing the other side of the world only creates distrust, it allows them to recruit and empowers the sympathizers.

So only idiots with no brain and zero balls talk tough.
.

Jesus Christ. What a delusional f*cktard we have here. Oh yeah, my understanding is so much more nuanced because I call myself a liberal and talk about socio-economic circumstances and stuff!

What a chump. It is the liberal multicultural dogma that has allowed mass migration on a large scale from the muslim world, and due to placing no restrictions, has completely failed in the task of assimilation, as these migrant communities develop solitudes and live parallel but separate lives. It is this irrational dogmatism that has allowed the many security risks that have been used to justify spying and snooping from the State. It was the liberal dogma of regime change and nation building (i.e. the universalism of democracy) that encouraged the Iraq experiment in the first place; many of its instigators were ex-Trots for this reason: trying to keep the world revolution going. And now it is the liberal dogma of sensitivity and trigger warnings, emotions and feelings, that prevents any sensible action from being taken, as European nations invite masses of young muslim men to their countries, many of whom can't even read and write in their own language, and have zero chance of assimilation.

You are aware that the neocons were post New Deal Liberals, right? You do know their favored candidate is Hilary Clinton? There's very little that is conservative about these people; in all your ignorance you prove you don't have the slightest idea what conservatism means. It was conservatives like Russell Kirk who opposed the first Iraq war (let alone the second) most strongly. He even predicted the backlash of the Islamic world in 1992, not 2016 like you, after the fact, in order to make a childish argument about how great liberals are.

[Dresta]

The cheek of this asshole to try and put the whole thing at the feet of "conservatives". Here's a bit of info for your ignorant ass: the Bushes are not conservative; Bush Jnr's "compassionate conservatism" was liberalism by another name. Every generation we go through this, as one portion of liberals repudiates the next liberal obsession (currently muslims, political correctness, and uncontrolled migration). First it was the New Deal liberals, then it was the neocons, and now it's people like Sam Harris, who despite being left-wing, are starting to be called conservative, simply because they have broken from liberal dogma on the issue of the threat of Islamic terrorism and mass muslim migration. Each time the people who are called "liberal" make themselves more extreme, so that a large portion of liberals no longer wish to be associated with the ideology. Soon everyone that doesn't support modern liberal correctness, diversity and sensitivity, will be brushed aside onto the huge pile of disparate "conservatives" who share the same label, but have very little in common.

FYI: It is Obama who is "bombing them" right now--is he a conservative too? Oh no? Is it because he's foolishly bombing them while inviting them in by the back door to commit mass murder against his citizenry? So he can blame it on guns and force the legislative change he wants? Or so he can blame it on "hate" and use it as an excuse to conflate mass murder with someone who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple?

And I see in your above post you've now said "the only reason extremism exists is because there is strong opposition to extremism"

Man, how long did it take you to come up with that one genius? Not even one of the reasons, but the only one: "If only we could all be nicer and more tolerant no one would be mean to us."

:facepalm

I think you'll find that's not how human beings or human nature works. You're utterly deluded.

[Dresta]

Andygar spotted:

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/0347/production/_89993800_033511942.jpg


"How is everyone else so stupid as to not know this a a nuanced issue: the only thing that will fix it is LOVE and CARE"

[Nastradamus]

9/11 took place with no guns and 3000 people died.


Doesn't the President realize that he can unite the country by actually taking some hard line stance on Islamic terrorism?

Obama instead wants to eliminate the weapon the terrorist uses, but not the actual terrorist!

Because its a very minor threat. There are few deaths from it on our soil in a given year. We got bombed 15 years ago, that's about the extent of the damage they've done to us.

[Nastradamus]

The cheek of this asshole to try and put the whole thing at the feet of "conservatives". Here's a bit of info for your ignorant ass: the Bushes are not conservative; Bush Jnr's "compassionate conservatism" was liberalism by another name. Every generation we go through this, as one portion of liberals repudiates the next liberal obsession (currently muslims, political correctness, and uncontrolled migration). First it was the New Deal liberals, then it was the neocons, and now it's people like Sam Harris, who despite being left-wing, are starting to be called conservative, simply because they have broken from liberal dogma on the issue of the threat of Islamic terrorism and mass muslim migration. Each time the people who are called "liberal" make themselves more extreme, so that a large portion of liberals no longer wish to be associated with the ideology. Soon everyone that doesn't support modern liberal correctness, diversity and sensitivity, will be brushed aside onto the huge pile of disparate "conservatives" who share the same label, but have very little in common.

FYI: It is Obama who is "bombing them" right now--is he a conservative too? Oh no? Is it because he's foolishly bombing them while inviting them in by the back door to commit mass murder against his citizenry? So he can blame it on guns and force the legislative change he wants? Or so he can blame it on "hate" and use it as an excuse to conflate mass murder with someone who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple?

And I see in your above post you've now said "the only reason extremism exists is because there is strong opposition to extremism"

Man, how long did it take you to come up with that one genius? Not even one of the reasons, but the only one: "If only we could all be nicer and more tolerant no one would be mean to us."

:facepalm

I think you'll find that's not how human beings or human nature works. You're utterly deluded.

Lol, Bush is a liberal. STFU please. Liberals don't deregulate and drastically lower taxes on the rich. That doesn't even get into the social stuff.

[NumberSix]

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/0347/production/_89993800_033511942.jpg
Somebody needs to tell that girl not everyone is interested in "love" and you can't force everyone to be.

The stupidity of the west is that too many make no attempt to understand what other people think and believe. They think that because WE believe in open liberal society that EVERYONE else in the world does too. They don't. The liberal values of the modern west are an anomaly of history. They're a freak exception, not the rule.

[NumberSix]

Lol, Bush is a liberal. STFU please. Liberals don't deregulate and drastically lower taxes on the rich. That doesn't even get into the social stuff.
Actually, that's exactly what an advocate of individual liberty would do. Lower all taxes and stay the hell out of people's lives.

The left has somehow amazingly coopted the word "liberal" despite being definitively anti-liberal statists. Bush was a statist too, but the left and the democrat party are not remotely liberal. Rand Paul is more of a liberal than any person in the democrat party.

[UK2K]

Not jumping to conclusions or anything but...


BRITISH PARLIAMENT MEMBER INJURED IN SHOOTING, PRESS ASSOCIATION REPORTS

LONDON -- Both sides in the British referendum debate Thursday suspended campaigning after Labour lawmaker Jo Cox was shot and critically injured in her northern England constituency.

West Yorkshire police said a 52-year-old man was arrested after the attack in Birstall, near Leeds. Police said a man in his late 40s to early 50s also suffered slight injuries.

Britain's Press Association news agency quoted eyewitness Hithem Ben Abdallah as saying Cox got involved in a scuffle between two men in Birstall, 200 miles (320 kilometers) north of London.

Abdallah said one of the men was fighting with Cox and then a gun went off twice and "she fell between two cars and I came and saw her bleeding on the floor."

Shopkeeper Sanjeev Kumar told the BBC said he saw a woman lying on the ground "bleeding from the mouth and nose," with two women trying to help her.

Cox has made finding a solution to the Syrian civil war a top priority and has been critical of Britain's reluctance to deepen its military involvement against Islamic State extremists as part of that effort.

[~primetime~]

Somebody needs to tell that girl not everyone is interested in "love" and you can't force everyone to be.

The stupidity of the west is that too many make no attempt to understand what other people think and believe. They think that because WE believe in open liberal society that EVERYONE else in the world does too. They don't. The liberal values of the modern west are an anomaly of history. They're a freak exception, not the rule.
I'm thinking if you aren't interested in love that would make you a sociopath...can't hate on the hippy movement, their message is a good one, regardless of how realistic it is.

Can't shit on someone for attempting to spread love...

[Dresta]

Lol, Bush is a liberal. STFU please. Liberals don't deregulate and drastically lower taxes on the rich. That doesn't even get into the social stuff.
Sorry, but you don't have a f*cking clue what you're talking about. The neocons were always disaffected liberals--this is a fact. Just because the liberals they became disillusioned with now call them conservative, does not make them so.


Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among Democrats who became disenchanted with the party's domestic and especially foreign policy. Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administrations of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[1] Neoconservatives continue to have influence in the Obama administration and neoconservative ideology has continued as a factor in American foreign policy.[2][3]



and


As the policies of the New Left made the Democrats increasingly leftist, these intellectuals became disillusioned with President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society domestic programs.

The neoconservatives rejected the counterculture New Left, and what they considered anti-Americanism in the non-interventionism of the activism against the Vietnam War. After the anti-war faction took control of the party during 1972 and nominated George McGovern, the Democrats among them endorsed Washington Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson instead for his unsuccessful 1972 and 1976 campaigns for president. Among those who worked for Jackson were future neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Richard Perle.[38] During the late 1970s, neoconservatives tended to endorse Ronald Reagan, the Republican who promised to confront Soviet expansionism. Neocons organized in the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation to counter the liberal establishment.[39]

In another (2004) article, Michael Lind also wrote [40]

"Neoconservatism ... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War] ... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center ... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists."

As you can see, everything that doesn't fit with the current liberal dogmas is excluded and labelled "conservative" even when it is not.

The export of democracy by force has always been a left-wing (i.e. radical) ideal. Its first major proponent in the US was Woodrow Wilson. It has nothing to do with conservatism. Anyone with any understanding of conservatism would know a conservative would see the export of democracy all over the world to be a far-fetched utopianism that was doomed to fail and to cost many lives in the process.

And on the domestic front, you call this conservative?:

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/beltway/files/2011/03/Bush-v-Reagan-v-Clinton-spending-increase.jpg


:roll:

Man was a raging Liberal. He's actually very similar to Obama, without the evident hatred of his own country.

[NumberSix]

I'm thinking if you aren't interested in love that would make you a sociopath...can't hate on the hippy movement, their message is a good one, regardless of how realistic it is.

Can't shit on someone for attempting to spread love...
Yes, you can if they consistently try to derail important issues with fantasy shit like "we just need to all love each other, maannnnn".

[~primetime~]

Yes, you can if they consistently try to derail important issues with fantasy shit like "we just need to all love each other, maannnnn".
I was responding to your idea that not everyone is interested in 'love'

[Dresta]

I'm thinking if you aren't interested in love that would make you a sociopath...can't hate on the hippy movement, their message is a good one, regardless of how realistic it is.

Can't shit on someone for attempting to spread love...
Yes you can. Being self-indulgent and unrealistic is both dangerous and foolish. If you really have love for people/persons you actually do something productive for them rather than twittering on about love like some self-obsessed bozo.

What they do actually demeans love because it isn't grounded in any kind of reality: it is a mere abstraction, a word. I wonder if these people have actually been in love, and whether this isn't a compensation for the fact they have not. Love makes you selfish (because by definition it elevates your concern for particular persons above all others), it makes you protective, and it can only be felt for individuals, not for mere abstractions. All I see from these people is pretence and show.

[~primetime~]

Yes you can. Being self-indulgent and unrealistic is both dangerous and foolish. If you really have love for people/persons you actually do something productive for them rather than twittering on about love like some self-obsessed bozo.

What they do actually demeans love because it isn't grounded in any kind of reality: it is a mere abstraction, a word. I wonder if these people have actually been in love, and whether this isn't a compensation for the fact they have not. Love makes you selfish (because by definition it elevates your concern for particular persons above all others), it makes you protective, and it can only be felt for individuals, not for mere abstractions. All I see from these people is pretence and show.
tweeting "everyone love everyone" hurts no one...you running around complaining that people are spreading too much love is a bad look IMO.

[StephHamann]

I'm thinking if you aren't interested in love that would make you a sociopath...can't hate on the hippy movement, their message is a good one, regardless of how realistic it is.

Can't shit on someone for attempting to spread love...

Muslims invaders are spreading a lot of love to european women, especially on new years eve.

[Dresta]

tweeting "everyone love everyone" hurts no one...you running around complaining that people are spreading too much love is a bad look IMO.
Actually, if it gets in the way of doing something actually meaningful and productive, it can hurt plenty of people. Typing that sort of thing on twitter serves no purpose, and the attitude in general is downright destructive (and actually has nothing to do with love).

As I said already, you can't love an abstraction, and "everyone" is an abstraction. It's a complete distortion of what love is to pretend it can be applied to everybody. Self-deception is dangerous, especially when it happens on a mass scale.

I'm not complaining that they're spreading "too much love"--i'm complaining that they aren't actually spreading any at all, while making a pretence that they are doing so, as if simply declaring love for everyone absolves a person from all responsibility and need to think and reckon with difficult questions that don't have ideal solutions.

[Dresta]

Muslims invaders are spreading a lot of love to european women, especially on new years eve.
*Love trumps Law*

"More love will solve everything: Love, Love, Love, woooo!!!"

[StephHamann]

*Love trumps Law*

"More love will solve everything: Love, Love, Love, woooo!!!"

Facebook recently banned a gay community because they said the islamic religion is spreading hate against gays.


LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE

[~primetime~]

I was responding to him saying not everyone is interested in love...can a group with love signs protesting "get in the way"...sure they can

I thought that wars were ultimately fought so that everyone can have peace and love. Evolving into that perfect utopian society.


My father was a hippy who protested war...his best fried was a green beret who fought in Nam...they both understood each other. I feel like this generation is missing that...we are more divided. People in past generations may have disagreed with a girl holding a sign, but they still had compassion for what she was saying.

[PistolPete]

this idiot calling me out, fake tough guy.

Not just a fake tough guy but an idiot at that, comparing Sadaam to ISIS :lol

Sadaam had an army, had targets to attack, an infrastructure that could be pinpointed ISIS not so much.

Fake tough guy acting like you'd go fight them yourself, like it takes balls to sign a document to go fight them. Anyone can easily sign a drone attack and/or send troops. And Obama has already killed/captured some leaders and disrupted some cells. But again, it's not as simple as launching an all out assault on an army since they live all over the world. They have cells that operate underground and live within the general population. What, you gonna launch an attack on an entire Orlando neighborhood?

Gonna wipe out an entire Minnesota Muslim population because you're afraid that one of them may have stated something negative about Trump on Facebook?

Idiot talk like yours is THE reason why extremists exist in the first place, and mentality like yours is the reason they WON'T get destroyed but instead grow. But you're too stupid to understand that.

As for me being a P*ssy, I'd smack the shit outta you in real life, f*ck internet talk


Nothing fake about me, bitch. And you're clueless to the might of the U.S. Military. So keep on telling yourself that it's "complicated". It's not, really. You kill the bad guy. End of story.