Jump to content
A Note on Topic Titles – Be Clear & Descriptive!

kraychik

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,206

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by kraychik

  1. kraychik
    It's a combination of intimidation and willing sacrifice, sometimes it's column A and sometimes it's column B. There is a cultural theme rampant among the "Palestinians" that glorifies martyrdom, and the entire population is indoctrinated with this message constantly, starting in infancy. Some know better and are simply intimidated into participation in terrorism (human shields, shuttling weapons, acting as spotters, etc), but some are gung-ho and do it passionately. It's really twisted.
  2. kraychik
    That's certainly not what I said. Remember, earlier in this thread I stated exactly the opposite, that the IDF goes to great lengths towards reducing "collateral damage", implementing methods that compromise its ability to secure military objectives by giving terrorists advance notice of impending operations. The IDF does things no other army does towards these ends, and I think it's a bad idea because it prolongs conflicts, give the enemy an advantage, and leads to more Israeli casualties.
  3. kraychik
    Man of these "civilians" don't want to evacuate. They willingly support the terrorist infrastructure in many ways. "Civilian" deaths are a big part of the broader propaganda war waged against Israel from its enemies.
  4. kraychik
    This leftist approach to the prosecution of war is what entrenches the world's sole superpower in a third-world trash bin like Afghanistan for over a decade. The war could've been over in weeks, but instead here we are in 2012, still talking about it. Why? Because America and its allies are too hesitant to actually apply military power with sufficient force to secure complete and total victory - to appease the left who cry crocodile tears over "civilians" but shout "war criminal" accusations to returning veterans.
  5. kraychik
    You and I are on the same page. If you haven't read this article before, try it out. Edward Luttwak, "Give War A Chance": http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/55210/edward-n-luttwak/give-war-a-chance
  6. kraychik
    Ridiculous narrative. More Chomsky-esque nonsense about "servility" to "power". It's all neo-Marxist nonsense. Beyond that, you're just making up the history as you go along about public opinion during these times.
  7. kraychik
    Is it your contention that if a school is being used for terrorist purposes (storage for weapons, operational planning, or launching point for attacks) that it should not be targeted for destruction? If you have a son in military service being shot at from a school, would you advise him to refrain from shooting back and allow himself to be hurt or killed? More wisdom from MLW's prolific communist, I suppose?
  8. kraychik
    Seriously? I guess you're another one of those gifted children that doesn't realise that English is a universal language, and that most importantly, Iranians and "Palestinians" don't share the same language.
  9. kraychik
    I'm not here to spoonfeed you information, and it's not like you've got a semblance of honesty to begin with. So what would be the point? My integrity isn't in question, either. I acknowledge mistakes if and when I make them. All you do is shout "lie!" over and over like a petulant little child, which is actually typical of the left.
  10. kraychik
    Reports confirmed that Obama had laid out a "low profile" policy in Libya, which is why there was no real security at the consulate in Benghazi. Moreover, all embassies are supposed to have access to emergency security via a fast-responding detail of Marines. This wasn't provided, because of the commitment to the "low profile" policy. EDIT - This should've received close attention, considering the volatility in Libya, but of course ideology came first. Of course requests were made by Ambassador Stevens for more security, and they were denied because Obama's policies couldn't be reconciled with them.
  11. kraychik
    That's a contradiction in terms. You're using Marxist ideology ("means of production" is a nonsensical Marxist term), so you might as well admit that you're willing to accept significant erosion of individual freedom in order to spread equality. Equality matters more to you than prosperity. You're concerned with equality of result rather than equality of opportunity. Thanks for coming out as a communist, though. It doesn't surprise me.
  12. kraychik
    I don't think he did, I know he did. It shouldn't be surprising considering the events in Libya were unlike events in, say, Norway. Reports confirmed it, anyways. Obama made a clear decision to maintain a "low profile" in Libya, and this policy was dutifully executed by Clinton. And this is what laid the foundation for the vulnerability of the Benghazi consulate.
  13. kraychik
    I guess I must've missed Bush's phantom presidency over the last (almost) four years.
  14. kraychik
    I'm not trying to make friends, here. It's just fun to swim in the kiddie pool once in awhile. Why don't you tell us more about the "confusion" over the RPG, mortar, and AK-47 attack on the consulate in Benghazi and the belief that it was associated with a protest (that never happened) against some obscure YouTube film?
  15. kraychik
    It had nothing to do with confusion, and everything to do with obfuscating the political decisions Obama made towards maintaining a "low profile" in Libya which left the consulate in Benghazi vulnerable to attack. This was why the "Innocence of Muslims" film was dishonestly blamed for causing a spontaneous eruption of rage, in order to shield Obama from questions about decisions that had been made regarding security in Libya, left his incompetence be further exposed and his false narrative of being tough on security further eroded. I love your leftist spin as you pretend to be a conservative. You even have socialists agreeing with you, how surprising.
  16. kraychik
    Nice Democratic Party talking point from the faux conservative.
  17. kraychik
    You're right, I was wrong about Iraq. Remember that I prefaced the statement with an acknowledgement that it was as stupid as your original comment to which I was replying. Comparing 9/11 and the attack on the consulate in Benghazi is beyond stupid. You really think this was the first successful terrorist attack murdering Americans since Obama took office? Wow.
  18. kraychik
    Nope. The left is all about greater governmental control at the expense of the individual's sovereignty. That is the left by definition in its purest sense. I understand that it makes you uncomfortable because it may cause you to revisit some fantasies you've been entertaining for many years.
  19. kraychik
    I guess you'd prefer it if they all just prayed for more rain? Or perhaps Israel should just trust its neighbours to operate in good faith once control is transferred to them over the so-called West Bank. I guess territory, in your mind, isn't a part of a national defence strategy. I guess Israel's narrow corridor along the Mediterranean Sea at around ten kilometres is wide enough to satisfy you. Thankfully Israelis don't share your stupidity optimism.
  20. kraychik
    So wyly, how long have you hated Jews for? Were you raised that way or did you self-indoctrinate in order to have a false premise upon which to engage in self-aggrandisement at parties?
  21. kraychik
    Like I said earlier, comparing those two incidents is absurd. But if you want me to put on my stupid hat in order to get down to your level, more American have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since Obama took office than during Bush's tenure. And Bush oversaw these two wars for seven and five years, respectively, whereas Obama has overseen them both for just under four years. Although tangential, Obama's also spent more money on both conflicts than Bush did during his tenure.
  22. kraychik
    You're right, calling it an op-ed is generous. It's nonsensical. I understand the point the author is trying to make, which is that certain components of contemporary libertarianism are often associated with the left, such as liberalising drug prohibition laws, but the false premise advanced in the op-ed is that increasing social liberties is a leftist value. The opposite is true, the left is all about growth of the state at the expense of the individual. He also makes the common mistake of associating same-sex with social freedom, although that's tangential. My point has always been consistent and accurate, that the values of the left are antithetical to classical liberalism, and that left-libertarianism is a non-sequitur, just like anarcho-communism/free market communism.
  23. kraychik
    Can you even define the term "settlement" in the context of the Jewish-Arab conflict without using an internet search? I doubt it
  24. kraychik
    Like I said earlier, you're low-hanging fruit and I feel like throwing some of the absurd comments of yours that I've read back in your face. From libertarianism having leftist origins, to settlements (which you still can't define) being a core cause of the Jewish-Arab conflict in and around Israel, and more recently a suggestion that recognizance of the overlap between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is somehow "statism"... it's easy to beat you up in these forums. And sometimes it's fun, I must admit.
  25. kraychik
    Why don't you try addressing any of the examples of appeasement from Obama I listed? Oh wait, that might be a bit difficult considering all you're ever able to contribute is copy-paste links to op-eds from the WaPo or LA Times.
×
×
  • Create New...