The Liberals and Islamists

[Civis Romanus sum]

I needed to comment on this which is in a thread which has been locked.

Maybe I have more imagination than liberals do. Maybe I have more empathy than liberals do. Maybe I'm just not as single minded in devotion to my great leader as liberals are. But this outrages me. This infuriates me. This makes me raging mad, and also very, very sad.

Kayla Meuller was a poor, silly, naive girl in her twenties, a human rights activist and humanitarian. She was captured by ISIS, repeatedly raped and beaten over a period of months, and finally murdered. I imagine this girl praying for rescue, or that she'd be released, fantasizing about it in her dark cell for months, thinking of what she'd do when she got home. But there was no rescue and no release. She died alone and frightened at the hands of vicious animals who thought their religion gave them the freedom to do as they wanted to anyone else.

I want those involved to die horribly, over a period of time. I'm sure the Americans have been searching for the leader of ISIS and they will get him eventually. Unfortunately, his death will be too quick. I want everyone involved in this filthy excuse for a movement to die and everyone who expresses any sympathy for them. They aren't human and should be wiped from the face of the earth. As for any 'canadians' who express sympathy for ISIS, we should fly them over there and drop them out of the plane without a parachute. And yes, I'm entirely serious.

When I hear the sniveling and bleating of the likes of Trudeau, and his brainless followers here complaining about using the word barbaric to describe the elements of the Islamic world who subscribe to filthy practices like genital mutilation, honor killing, child "marriage", and all the vicious, brutal, thuggish aspects of female hatred which permeates the Muslim religion I feel like spitting. Why would anyone care about respecting those with such hatred for women? What kind of a person is he that he is more concerned with not being seen as showing disrespect for their 'culture' than with how brutally murderous that culture is towards women?

I want the whole airforce to go over and bomb the hell out of all of them. But instead Trudeau and that sanctimonious Mulcair insist we do nothing at all except bring more Muslims with their female hating religion to Canada. They're both gutless, sniveling moral cowards more interested in getting the votes of misogynist Muslims in Canada than with what happens to women in the middle east or in Canada. Neither of them is fit to clean my toilets.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34205911

[Michael Hardner]

You're getting sucked into the same vortex of hate that groups like IS depend on.

They take bombed-out, desperate people and vector their hate towards the west, kind of like what you're doing against all Muslims in your post here.

If you really want to defeat IS, then rise above and look towards a new way. You don't have to be a pacficist - you can contain them militarily, but let go of the hate if you want to be able to really defeat them.

[John]

Well...I think that the only way to stop the current refugee crisis is to have Western troops on the ground battling IS. Regardless of how the current situation has come to pass it seems like the air campaign isn't doing to much to stop them

[Scotty]

You're getting sucked into the same vortex of hate that groups like IS depend on.

They take bombed-out, desperate people and vector their hate towards the west, kind of like what you're doing against all Muslims in your post here.

If you really want to defeat IS, then rise above and look towards a new way. You don't have to be a pacficist - you can contain them militarily, but let go of the hate if you want to be able to really defeat them.

How do you contain them militarily without a military? As he said, Mulcair and Trudeau are dead set against any military involvement from Canada for any reason.

[Scotty]

Well...I think that the only way to stop the current refugee crisis is to have Western troops on the ground battling IS. Regardless of how the current situation has come to pass it seems like the air campaign isn't doing to much to stop them

Western governments are never going to go for that. The Russians might, however. And of course, that fool Obama is complaining about increasing Russian involvement.

[Canada_First]

How will importing isis members to Canada make them not want to kill us and create an Islamic State in Canada?

[Queenmandy85]

Canada has no military to speak of. If you cannot defend your country, your defence budget is a waste of money. Canadians do not want to spend the money required to have an effective military.

[On Guard for Thee]

Well...I think that the only way to stop the current refugee crisis is to have Western troops on the ground battling IS. Regardless of how the current situation has come to pass it seems like the air campaign isn't doing to much to stop them

And I think you are right, the air war has done little to slow the spread of IS. For starters you aren't fighting a force which is wearing an identifiable uniform on a battlefield. They may be a lot of things but they are not stupid. They can easily blend in with the local populace and so that's where you have to go to effectively root them out. The west is understandably tired of putting boots on the ground, especially in the ME, and especially after the screw ups the US etc., made in Iraq, which actually helped to create the atmosphere which created IS. This time around it seems there actually is justification to do what nobody in the west seems ready to do.

[Keepitsimple]

And I think you are right, the air war has done little to slow the spread of IS. For starters you aren't fighting a force which is wearing an identifiable uniform on a battlefield. They may be a lot of things but they are not stupid. They can easily blend in with the local populace and so that's where you have to go to effectively root them out. The west is understandably tired of putting boots on the ground, especially in the ME, and especially after the screw ups the US etc., made in Iraq, which actually helped to create the atmosphere which created IS. This time around it seems there actually is justification to do what nobody in the west seems ready to do.

So......as the guy who scoffs at the "bomb trucks", you're now in favour of putting Western boots on the ground? And if that becomes a reality, you're OK with putting Canadian soldiers into the battle? Is that what I'm hearing?

Edited September 13, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[Scotty]

The west is understandably tired of putting boots on the ground, especially in the ME, and especially after the screw ups the US etc., made in Iraq, which actually helped to create the atmosphere which created IS. This time around it seems there actually is justification to do what nobody in the west seems ready to do.

Including Trudeau and Mulcair, who freaked out when they found out a few Canadians had been embedded with a group of Iraqis they were training and had shot at some ISIS people.

[On Guard for Thee]

So......you're now in favour of putting Western boots on the ground? And if that becomes a reality, you're OK with putting Canadian soldiers into the battle? Is that what I'm hearing?

I didn't say I was in favor of anything, merely pointing out how ineffective the air was has/will continue to be. My preference would be to prop up the local troops, people who would likely be most adept at ID'ing the IS followers, and let them take care of the problem. In any case, buzzing around in an F 18 ain't doing it.

[Keepitsimple]

I didn't say I was in favor of anything, merely pointing out how ineffective the air was has/will continue to be. My preference would be to prop up the local troops, people who would likely be most adept at ID'ing the IS followers, and let them take care of the problem. In any case, buzzing around in an F 18 ain't doing it.

But you now believe that "this time round", it's justifiable to put Western boots on the ground, right?

[Scotty]

I didn't say I was in favor of anything, merely pointing out how ineffective the air was has/will continue to be. My preference would be to prop up the local troops, people who would likely be most adept at ID'ing the IS followers, and let them take care of the problem. In any case, buzzing around in an F 18 ain't doing it.

It stopped ISIS from taking several Kurd towns, which would have resulted in untold rape, murder and sex slavery. So I bet the kurds don't share your preferences.

[Queenmandy85]

To Civis Romanus Sum: I would think you feel the same about Roman Catholics. Their theology is anti-female and their terrorist activity has resulted in hundreds of deaths, including a cousin or two.

That being said, the Protestant terroists have killed a couple of other cousins.

However, I know a lot of Protestants, Catholics and Muslims. Nice people on the whole. They don't ascribe to woman hating or terrorism. I blame jerks. Why don't we send in our token armed forces to kill jerks every where. Good luck with that, CRS. You don't like people who hate. Look in the mirror.

[On Guard for Thee]

But you now believe that "this time round", it's justifiable to put Western boots on the ground, right?

As I've already pointed out, it would be the more effective way of dealing with the problem. Whether or not you think it's justifiable depends on how frightened you are of IS I guess.

[On Guard for Thee]

It stopped ISIS from taking several Kurd towns, which would have resulted in untold rape, murder and sex slavery. So I bet the kurds don't share your preferences.

I suspect Kurdish boots on the ground probably had a lot more to do with defending their own towns.

[Michael Hardner]

How do you contain them militarily without a military? As he said, Mulcair and Trudeau are dead set against any military involvement from Canada for any reason.

You can't contain them militarily without a military, obviously.

[Moonlight Graham]

Not fighting radical Islamists and letting them fester and possibly create more of their own states is not a very appealing option. On the other hand, the problem with fighting radical Islamists militarily is that it's unwinnable. It's like the Vietnam War. You're never going to kill them all (unless you're willing to have nuclear weapons as an option), and they're just going to keep coming and coming. The only way to defeat radical Islamists militarily is to kill every last one of them. The only way to defeat the North Vietnamese was to kill every last one of them. When you're fighting an opponent in their home that's fighting for something they're unwilling to give up, it's almost impossible to "contain" them, you have to do very terrible things to defeat them, and I don't think many people want to realistically go down the route of turning the middle-east into glass...and even then the Muslim diaspora will probably still fight us!

Foreign military invasions created the mujahadeed in Afghanistan and what eventually turned into al-Qaeda. Muslims don't want foreign militaries invading their lands. Nobody does, but to Muslims it's sacrilegious to them. The pan-Muslim mujahadeen brought Muslims from many countries into Afghanistan to defeat the USSR in the 80's. As per Bin Laden's own words, Al-Qaeda was created largely because during the 1991 Gulf War, Americans were allowed by Saudi Arabia to set up military bases in "the land of the two holy mosques" (Mecca and Medina) to fight Saddam. Muslims have been fighting to rid the "invading Jews in Israel" (as they see it) for over a century with no end in sight. As long as non-Muslims attack/invade/occupy Muslim countries, jihadists will fight them. This fight is unwinnable for us. We squash 1 bug and 3 more appear.

The only sane option is to get the heck out of the middle-east. Our intervention in the ME over the last century has been an epic disaster. Look at the state of the ME right now! Look at the results of our meddling! It's getting worse and worse over the decades, not better. The West should also take a neutral stance on the Israel-Palestine mess. If Israel wants to stay and defend itself then let it, without our military involvement. Once we've left the ME, we then do our best to secure Western countries internally/domestically from any kind of domestic jihadist attacks. Over the next few decades after we leave, I would wager anti-West sentiment in the Muslim ME would slowly start to die off, and terror attack attempts against us would be greatly reduced. This is would reduce our control of oil resources in the ME, our main reason for military intervention in the ME, but I imagine starting to use other energy sources (ie: solar, nuclear etc.) would be less costly in blood & treasure than perpetual war that costs trillions.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[Argus]

To Civis Romanus Sum: I would think you feel the same about Roman Catholics. Their theology is anti-female and their terrorist activity has resulted in hundreds of deaths, including a cousin or two.

That being said, the Protestant terroists have killed a couple of other cousins.

This is that same stupid moral equivalency almost all liberals engage in, trying to pretend that nothing Muslims do is any worse than what we're doing. The Catholic and Protestant thing in northern Ireland was a nothing tempest in a teapot disagreement between civilized gentlemen compared to Muslim violence. Did they ever set up huge car bombs in markets or churches without warning people ahead of time? Did they ever stop a bus filled with workers from the other religion and machinegun everyone on it? Did they ever behead groups of cleaning women who worked for the British? Did they ever kidnap third party aid workers and torture and rape them to death in the name of God?

In any event, the Irish thing was never really about God, it was about the English settlers vs the Irish natives.

[Argus]

The only sane option is to get the heck out of the middle-east.

That might be an option if you people didn't insist on bringing hundreds of thousands of them across the ocean to live with us. If extremism spreads and prospers it will cross the ocean, too. We've already seen it. It will get much worse over here if the "caliphate" becomes established and thrives in the middle east.

[Keepitsimple]

The only sane option is to get the heck out of the middle-east. Our intervention in the ME over the last century has been an epic disaster. Look at the state of the ME right now! Look at the results of our meddling! It's getting worse and worse over the decades, not better. The West should also take a neutral stance on the Israel-Palestine mess. If Israel wants to stay and defend itself then let it, without our military involvement. Once we've left the ME, we then do our best to secure Western countries internally/domestically from any kind of domestic jihadist attacks. Over the next few decades after we leave, I would wager anti-West sentiment in the Muslim ME would slowly start to die off, and terror attack attempts against us would be greatly reduced. This is would reduce our control of oil resources in the ME, our main reason for military intervention in the ME, but I imagine starting to use other energy sources (ie: solar, nuclear etc.) would be less costly in blood & treasure than perpetual war that costs trillions.

If only it was that easy - leave them alone to dominate their own lands .Listen to their own words - they won't stop until Islam is Global - until the infidels bow to Muhammad - or are beheaded. Their words. Leave them alone and the "rule" the Middle East......and all those "refugees" become a staging ground for a country=by-country assimilation - and as they say - it may take 100 years but that's their goal. Choose to not believe it at your own naïve peril. I know it's difficult - difficult to think in irrational terms - like these zeolots.....but until people accept the reality of the extremist elements of Muslim fundamentalism - until we accept that this growing scourge plays by no rules, has no conscious, and is for all intents and purposes - and irreconcilable, deadly menace to mankind - then we will slowly disappear into the quicksand of submission or anarchy. Purge this filth from the earth - there is no other answer.

[Moonlight Graham]

That might be an option if you people didn't insist on bringing hundreds of thousands of them across the ocean to live with us.

Who's "you people"? I never advocated bringing anyone here.

If extremism spreads and prospers it will cross the ocean, too. We've already seen it. It will get much worse over here if the "caliphate" becomes established and thrives in the middle east.

Maybe true, maybe not. My argument is that extremist is more likely to weaken (though not go away) if foreign militaries leave the ME alone. It would give Muslims much less reason to rebel. I'm sure if a foreign country invaded Canada I would be very angry and tempted to take up arms against them, wouldn't you? There's no easy answers here. These crazy extremists are a huge problem that's incredibly difficult to solve. They want everyone in the world to either convert or die, and they want to spread a caliphate to take over the world. We might be damned if we do and damned if we don't.

[Queenmandy85]

Try substituting the word Jew for Muslim in some of the above posts. It reads like Mein Kampf.

Nobody is saying ISIS is not evil. ISIS is no more representive of Islam than the Branch Davidians in the Waco siege were representative of Mormans or gay bashers are representative of Christians.

There are wing nuts in every religion. Are all Priests child molesters? Of course not. Did the perpetrators of massacres of Moslems in India represent Hindus? Neither do the monsters in ISIS have anything to do with Islam. It is a disguise these people wear to make money, just like the Mafia. Remember when Joe Columbo started an organization to protest discrimination against Italian Americans? It was a front for the Cosa Nostra.

If you can eliminate ISIS without injuring innocent people, go for it.

We can defeat ISIS. It requires about 2.5 million troops to invade Syria and Iraq, and an enormous occupation force for several decades. It also requires the occupation force to understand the differences between the various factions in Islam. All the people of the ME want is peace,security and law and order.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Queenmandy85

[Moonlight Graham]

If only it was that easy - leave them alone to dominate their own lands .Listen to their own words - they won't stop until Islam is Global - until the infidels bow to Muhammad - or are beheaded. Their words. Leave them alone and the "rule" the Middle East......and all those "refugees" become a staging ground for a country=by-country assimilation - and as they say - it may take 100 years but that's their goal. Choose to not believe it at your own naïve peril. I know it's difficult - difficult to think in irrational terms - like these zeolots.....but until people accept the reality of the extremist elements of Muslim fundamentalism - until we accept that this growing scourge plays by no rules, has no conscious, and is for all intents and purposes - and irreconcilable, deadly menace to mankind - then we will slowly disappear into the quicksand of submission or anarchy.

I agree with you about everything, except maybe for the last sentence I put in italics. Thing is, in order to form a caliphate state and "dominate the world" ("the far enemy" in their words), these extremists will have to dominate their own region first ("the near enemy"). I don't think they have much of a chance in a fight against Saudi Arabia or Iran, or Israel. Iran is Shia, and will certainly never ever get with their program. I'd rather the region deal with this problem than us.

If we left them alone, we would be low on their list of "enemy" priorities to attack. The fact is ISIS never attacked Canada until we attacked them first. The attacks by ISIS supporters in Ottawa and Quebec last year occurred about a month after Parliament voted to start air strikes against ISIS. ISIS is different than al-Qaeda. their immediate focus is to form a caliphate state in the region, while al-Qaeda's primary immediate focus is mostly on attacking foreign invaders in order to expel them from Muslim lands. Both have similar end goals, but ISIS wasn't committing terror attacks on Western soil like al-Qaeda was until we declared war on them. IMO ISIS is less of an immediate threat to the West than al-Qaeda.

Purge this filth from the earth - there is no other answer.

I'd LOVE that. The thing is, is it even possible? How do you destroy a religious ideology with guns and bombs?

[Moonlight Graham]

Try substituting the word Jew for Muslim in some of the above posts. It reads like Mein Kampf.

That's actually an excellent point. Wow.

Nobody is saying ISIS is not evil. ISIS is no more representive of Islam than the Branch Davidians in the Waco siege were representative of Mormans or gay bashers are representative of Christians.

There are wing nuts in every religion. Are all Priests child molesters? Of course not. Did the perpetrators of massacres of Moslems in India represent Hindus? Neither do the monsters in ISIS have anything to do with Islam. It is a disguise these people wear to make money, just like the Mafia.

Extremists may represent a small portion of all Muslims, but they're still Muslim and their beliefs are still Islamic. They just have have a different interpretation of it. It's naive to think they don't believe what they say they do, and that it's all "a front" to make money and get support. Ridiculous. These crazy freaks are true believers, that's what makes them so dangerous.

All the people of the ME want is peace,security and law and order.

I disagree. Shiites want to get rid of Sunnis and vice versa, extremists want to get rid of everyone who don't believe as they do, and a lot of Muslims all all sides want to get rid of Israel. Don't kid yourself.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Moonlight Graham