• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ISIS Has Brought the War to the U.S.

What you think is nice does not interest me.

Raqqa is a city of a quarter-million. Ramadi is about as large. Mosul is more like a million. And you call those masses of people "a few random Arab civilians?" What on earth are you prattling about? It is obvious to most people that a force of the size we are told ISIS is--ten or twenty thousand--could not possibly control all those people, and hundreds of thousands more in other places, unless a substantial part of those "Arab civilians" sympathized with the bastards and were collaborating with them.

You have made very clear in many posts that you loathe the United States, much like the ISIS jihadists do. It's easy enough to understand your envy and resentment. And it's completely predictable that you would cook up reasons why the U.S. should not make serious war on these bastards. If some civilians they are sheltering among get killed in the process, too G--damned bad. It is not a violation of the law of war to kill civilians as an incident of attacking the enemy. Forty thousand French civilians were killed by the Allies in the course of driving the Germans out of their country after D-Day, and it was not a war crime to kill them.

Once again, I'm inspired to recommend Andy McCarthy's fine book, "The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America."

Why would anyone recommend such paranoiac garbage (unless they were on a retainer)

Try "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" by Rajiv Chandrakesakaran It explain's Bush's groundwork in creating DAESH.

Imperial Life in The Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone: Rajiv Chandrasekaran: 9780307278838: Amazon.com: Books
 
That is not an answer. Cons love to rip on Obama for his "lack of strategy." Seems the only strategies cons have include more airstrikes or invasions.

And what do Rats have? Run away. Slink away. Pretend it will all get better. Pretend it isnt going to keep happening here in the US. Pretend there will be a happy ending if we just appease fundamentalist Islam.

Maybe rats can invite them to a picnic.
 
I have not presumed to call my view a plan. What I know is that our enemy is motivated by eschatological goals that will lead him to attack us relentlessly. We must fight back, and the only way to secure our feature is to defeat that enemy.

Ah, so you have no answer, dismissed.
 
The San Bernardino event was staged it seems. Like too many other violent events these days, the closer one looks, the more the story falls apart.

It advances the agenda of gun control, and it supports the illusion of the Global War On Terror.
 
What does the First Amendment have to do with whether Muslims like living in our democratic republic? The fact the teachings of their religions are fundamentally at odds with democracy and individual liberties has nothing to do with the Constitution, except that it casts doubt on their support for the rule of law.

What does the First Amendment have to do with whether Christians like living in our democratic republic? The fact the teachings of Christianity are fundamentally at odds with democracy and individual liberties has nothing to do with the Constitution.

We are supposed to live in a secular society, one in which the most passionate believers are free to worship as they wish as long they cause no harm to others AND/OR attempt to take control of our government.
But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia

In Jefferson's Autobiography, he explained something of the process undertaken when the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom was being debated in the state legislature
Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read "” departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.
I can easily imagine the ranting and raving if a present-day American politician proposed removing the words "Jesus Christ" from a document before a legislature. We can't even get the words, "In God We Trust" removed from our currency because that would just be way too offensive.
 
What does the First Amendment have to do with whether Christians like living in our democratic republic? The fact the teachings of Christianity are fundamentally at odds with democracy and individual liberties has nothing to do with the Constitution.

We are supposed to live in a secular society, one in which the most passionate believers are free to worship as they wish as long they cause no harm to others AND/OR attempt to take control of our government.


In Jefferson's Autobiography, he explained something of the process undertaken when the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom was being debated in the state legislature I can easily imagine the ranting and raving if a present-day American politician proposed removing the words "Jesus Christ" from a document before a legislature. We can't even get the words, "In God We Trust" removed from our currency because that would just be way too offensive.

"In God We Trust" has been found acceptable by SCOTUS not because of its religious content but because of the lack thereof. They called it "ceremonial Deism" without constitutional impact.
 
Why would anyone recommend such paranoiac garbage (unless they were on a retainer)

Try "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" by Rajiv Chandrakesakaran It explain's Bush's groundwork in creating DAESH.

Imperial Life in The Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone: Rajiv Chandrasekaran: 9780307278838: Amazon.com: Books

I very strongly recommend Andy McCarthy's book, because it details the ways in which leftists have cooperated with Muslim jihadists to sabotage this country. Commie America-haters have been the jihadists' abettors from the start, constantly arguing against confronting them with serious military force while spreading Islamist propaganda against the United States. Right after 9/11, some of these leftists tried to exonerate the jihadists by claiming the U.S. deserved the attacks--that it had brought them upon itself by its own acts. One of them was the preacher whose sermons the un-American Marxist liar who is now disgracing the White House regularly attended for twenty years, Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright." Referring to the 9/11 attacks, Wright said "America--your chickens have come home to roost."

A note about Mr. McCarthy, for everyone who is not a handmaiden of Islamic jihadists. He is a former federal lawyer who was part of the team that prosecuted Abdel "The Blind Sheikh" Rahman for his role in the first conspiracy to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993. The attack of February 26, which used a 1,200-lb. bomb inside a van in a parking structure beneath the North Tower, narrowly missed bringing down both towers more than eight years before 9/11. Considering the heavy structural damage caused by the explosion, it seems miraculous it killed only six people.

There is very strong evidence this attack was directed from overseas, although it is not clear by whom. The two men who actually made the bomb, Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Yasin, both arrived at the same apartment building in Jersey City within ten days of each other in September, 1992, Yousef coming from Pakistan and Yasin from Iraq. Yasin's brother lived there, and his apartment became a meeting place for the dozen or so known conspirators.

The conspiracy had begun as a much smaller-scale plot to avenge a friend of some of the plotters, an unbalanced person named Sayyid Nosair. Nosair had been convicted and sent to Attica for murdering a Jewish radical named Meir Kahane at a speech in a New York hotel in 1990. He hated Jews intensely and further blamed them for his conviction, and he often spoke of the World Trade Center, with all the finance that took place there, as a nest of Jews. Nosair and his bungling friends never hoped to bring down the Trade Center--they were thinking in terms of killing several specified people with pipe bombs. But when the plot was greatly expanded and experts sent from abroad to help, the idea of targeting Nosair's hated Trade Center stuck.

Rahman, who was a prominent theologian in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, was convicted of several federal crimes and sent to prison for life. Mohammed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton helped usher into the presidency of Egypt, which he did not hold for long, tried to bargain for Rahman's release. The Blind Sheikh's lawyer, a longtime commie named Lynne Stewart, was herself convicted and sent to prison for helping him direct terrorist attacks abroad from his cell. During her visits, he would give her coded instructions for attacks, and she would then work these words and phrases into comments she made during the press conferences following those visits. By prearrangement, jihadists overseas would be listening and taking notes.
 
Last edited:
"In God We Trust" has been found acceptable by SCOTUS not because of its religious content but because of the lack thereof. They called it "ceremonial Deism" without constitutional impact.

I know what the SCOTUS ruled but if it were only "ceremonial Deism", the fight against its removal would not be coming almost solely from the evangelical Christian right. Sometimes the justices simply refuse to acknowledge reality in favour of their own personal beliefs. Has there ever been a Supreme Court Justice who was not Catholic, Jewish or Protestant Christian?
 
I know what the SCOTUS ruled but if it were only "ceremonial Deism", the fight against its removal would not be coming almost solely from the evangelical Christian right. Sometimes the justices simply refuse to acknowledge reality in favour of their own personal beliefs. Has there ever been a Supreme Court Justice who was not Catholic, Jewish or Protestant Christian?

Doesn't matter. It also does not matter that you may not approve of the people who bring the cases. "The Constitution is what the judges say it is." --Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes
 
We must fight. I'm not the one saying we have to do something different, and then not saying what that different thing is. I know what we have to do.

Why "must we fight"? What we are doing is not working. You can't point to a way to make it work. So how does fighting, as we are doing now, going to resolve this? You have no idea as to how to solve this problem. You just throw out some banal platitude as to " we have to fight" but that is it.

The last 14 years of action has proven itself to be folly. Continuing down that road will result in more negative repercussions.
 
Albert Einstein didn't say the words or write them but nonetheless, the words are true, no matter who put them together.

the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
 
But....but......but......we were fighting them there so we wouldn't need to do it here!!! What happened?

Oh yeah, our Infinity War backfired we left.

Fixed it for you.
 
Fixed it for you.

We haven't left. We're still bombing all sorts of crap over there. We just moved theaters.

So no, you fixed nothing. The Infinity War backfired.
 
I can easily imagine the ranting and raving if a present-day American politician proposed removing the words "Jesus Christ" from a document before a legislature. We can't even get the words, "In God We Trust" removed from our currency because that would just be way too offensive.

You make your hostility toward Christianity clear, not least by trying to equate it to Islam--as if Christianity were by nature supremacist, and called on believers to convert everyone else by the sword, or if they refused, subjugate and make them a pariah class forced to pay a poll tax. That phony equation has become a go-to ruse, which sometimes takes the form of pointing to the sporadic droplets of violence by Christian extremists in a lame attempt to minimize the continual flood of atrocities by Muslim jihadists around the world. It is about as convincing as someone claiming in 1933 that the national socialist party was simply a patriotic organization whose goal was to promote pride in Germany, and that it was just as benign as, say, the DAR or the VFW in the United States.

At least one ranter did try to get the tradition of opening each day's session of his state's legislature with a prayer abolished, and in Marsh v. Chambers in 1983, the Supreme Court rejected his arguments. Another opponent of Christianity claimed the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow in 2004, the Court rejected his claim.

I agree with Justice Thomas' complex, brilliant argument in his concurring opinion in Elk Grove Unified that it was a gross misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause for the Court ever to apply it to the states, as it first clearly did in Everson v. Board of Education in 1947. Thomas argues that the states insisted on the Establishment Clause in 1791 to protect their right to make religious establishments from federal infringement, so that by incorporating that clause into the Fourteenth Amendment and applying it as a limitation on the states' power to make them, the Court has brought about just the result the clause was intended to prevent.
 
We haven't left. We're still bombing all sorts of crap over there. We just moved theaters.

So no, you fixed nothing. The Infinity War backfired.

Obama pulled out most of the troops, and has changed the mission completely.
 
Obama pulled out most of the troops, and has changed the mission completely.

There was no mission, and everything was done on Bush's time table. There was no way to stabilize Iraq the way we took it down, we didn't finish in Afghanistan before we got sidetracked into Iraq (was that Obama too). We've expanded our war at every opportunity, but at no point had we made anything better or pushed to accomplish any of our supposition goals.

Infinity War isn't waged for goals, its waged for government power. Obama is just carrying on what Bush started, and the next guy will likely do the same.
 
You make your hostility toward Christianity clear, not least by trying to equate it to Islam--as if Christianity were by nature supremacist, and called on believers to convert everyone else by the sword, or if they refused, subjugate and make them a pariah class forced to pay a poll tax. That phony equation has become a go-to ruse, which sometimes takes the form of pointing to the sporadic droplets of violence by Christian extremists in a lame attempt to minimize the continual flood of atrocities by Muslim jihadists around the world. It is about as convincing as someone claiming in 1933 that the national socialist party was simply a patriotic organization whose goal was to promote pride in Germany, and that it was just as benign as, say, the DAR or the VFW in the United States.

At least one ranter did try to get the tradition of opening each day's session of his state's legislature with a prayer abolished, and in Marsh v. Chambers in 1983, the Supreme Court rejected his arguments. Another opponent of Christianity claimed the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow in 2004, the Court rejected his claim.

I agree with Justice Thomas' complex, brilliant argument in his concurring opinion in Elk Grove Unified that it was a gross misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause for the Court ever to apply it to the states, as it first clearly did in Everson v. Board of Education in 1947. Thomas argues that the states insisted on the Establishment Clause in 1791 to protect their right to make religious establishments from federal infringement, so that by incorporating that clause into the Fourteenth Amendment and applying it as a limitation on the states' power to make them, the Court has brought about just the result the clause was intended to prevent.

I know - you constantly refer to Thomas opinion in Elk Grove Unified, so your response is not unexpected even though it totally ignores what I wrote.

Also, claiming I have "hostility toward Christianity" simply shows your willingness and belief in the superiority of your religion to all other beliefs and non-beliefs. When the non-believer asks for the removal of any governmental sanctioning of any religion, this does not mean the religious can't put up their Ten Commandments monuments on private property visible to the public. It does not mean churches can't display crosses or crucifixes with bloody, dead Jesuses in public. No one is advocating for the removal or destruction of Nativity mangers from public view - just from property which belongs to all citizens.

Yes, all of the evil done by Christian religions in the past is just that - been there, done that, don't do it no more. Just stop denying that such atrocities were carried out in the name of your deity. Yes, the Islamic radicals are killing far more of their fellow Muslims than they have killed Christians, Jews and non-believers. To put all Muslims under the banner of Daesh is to act as the radicals want you to act - so keep up the good work, helping the recruiters for Daesh.
 
Why "must we fight"? What we are doing is not working. You can't point to a way to make it work. So how does fighting, as we are doing now, going to resolve this? You have no idea as to how to solve this problem. You just throw out some banal platitude as to " we have to fight" but that is it.

The last 14 years of action has proven itself to be folly. Continuing down that road will result in more negative repercussions.

We must fight because we will be attacked relentlessly even if we do not. Our enemy's war aims are universal and absolute. Put most plainly, there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

In 1863 neither Abraham Lincoln nor US Grant could foresee the end, but they knew it was imperative to continue the fight.
 
I know - you constantly refer to Thomas opinion in Elk Grove Unified, so your response is not unexpected even though it totally ignores what I wrote.

Also, claiming I have "hostility toward Christianity" simply shows your willingness and belief in the superiority of your religion to all other beliefs and non-beliefs. When the non-believer asks for the removal of any governmental sanctioning of any religion, this does not mean the religious can't put up their Ten Commandments monuments on private property visible to the public. It does not mean churches can't display crosses or crucifixes with bloody, dead Jesuses in public. No one is advocating for the removal or destruction of Nativity mangers from public view - just from property which belongs to all citizens.

Yes, all of the evil done by Christian religions in the past is just that - been there, done that, don't do it no more. Just stop denying that such atrocities were carried out in the name of your deity. Yes, the Islamic radicals are killing far more of their fellow Muslims than they have killed Christians, Jews and non-believers. To put all Muslims under the banner of Daesh is to act as the radicals want you to act - so keep up the good work, helping the recruiters for Daesh.

I would recommend Justice Thomas' opinion to people who share your views, but it is difficult material, and I am sure very few of them could even begin to understand it. To many of them, Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Michael Newdow qualify as deep thinkers and constitutional scholars. Your comments about religious displays are simplistic, and the tolerance they purport to show is dubious. Under a rational interpretation of the Establishment Clause, any state should be able to allow whatever religious establishments it likes--nativity scenes, displays of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, prayers in public schools and state legislatures, student prayers before football games at public schools, and so on, however much any Christianity-haters may whine about it. But apparently you prefer the "wall of separation" view taken by the virulently anti-Catholic ex-KKK member Justice Hugo Black in his opinion for the majority in Everson v. Board.

"Your religion"? "Your deity"? What silliness. You have no idea what my religion or deity is, or if I have any at all. For all you know, I believe in Thuggee, and am meeting my fellow believers to waylay and strangle some poor slob tonight. Nothing contrary to Christianity I might believe would keep me from strongly defending the rights of Christians against the collectivists, advocates for homosexuality, etc. who are constantly attacking them. Psuedo-liberal collectivists are wolves in sheep's clothing. They pretend to be liberal, but when it comes to intolerance and narrow-mindedness, they give Muslim jihadists a run for their money. The only freedom of speech or religion these sanctimonious prigs give a damn about protecting is their own. They like to pose as hip and cosmopolitan, but they remind me instead of the dour and puritanical-looking farm couple in Grant Wood's painting, "American Gothic."

I don't give two hoots in hell how any Islamist wants me to act. Kill enough of the bastards, and what they want or don't want won't matter. We have enough heavy bombers to eliminate most of the jihadists who want to kill us, and to do it dramatically enough to make the rest of the world's Muslims too scared even to think about ever crossing the United States. What we need is a president who will use these and other very powerful weapons the jihadists in ISIS and other groups have no answer for, and not be overly fastidious about how many civilians are killed incidentally. The U.S. must never give Muslim jihadists safe zones in which to hatch their murderous, supremacist war crimes by declaring cities in which they are sheltering off limits. I am glad to see the Russians are not doing that in Raqqa and other Syrian cities where jihadists are operating, and neither should this country.
 
Last edited:
We must fight because we will be attacked relentlessly even if we do not. Our enemy's war aims are universal and absolute. Put most plainly, there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

In 1863 neither Abraham Lincoln nor US Grant could foresee the end, but they knew it was imperative to continue the fight.

Very well put. I might add that the will to continue the Civil War continued in the face of bloodshed that makes that of the war against jihadists pale in comparison. Not many more Americans, if any, were killed during a dozen years of fighting in Iraq, about 4,500, as were killed at Antietam between dawn and dusk of one single day. The total casualties at Antietam numbered about 23,000.
 
I see you have no answer.

ISIS doctrine calls for the destruction of everyone who opposes a caliphate. That does not mean they would make it priority to target a nation that has little-to-no involvement in the ME. The only situation where I can see it happening is if they want to drag more countries into the quagmire, but for any of them to get involved would be to play right into ISIS' hands.
 
Back
Top Bottom