Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa/ninety-percent-of-raqqa-retaken-from-islamic-state-u-s-military-idUSKBN1CM2JA

Is this why Gas Prices Jumped about 30 cents the other day?

Remind me again: how many people in ISIS?

One more reminder, what would be the total number of soldiers you'd get be if you combined the military's of all the various countries in that part of the world that are against ISIS?

has trump tried to take credit yet?

I blame Hillary for it.

"I would've taken care of ISIS in two weeks if it weren't for misogyny!"

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
has trump tried to take credit yet?

TBF:

s1JCrE_4BiM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1JCrE_4BiM

"I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me." -Trump

Better this then watching Obama pull all out troops out of the way and making them look like cowards.

YELLOW IS A PEOPLE TOO CLYDE!!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
has trump tried to take credit yet?

If something happens on your watch, don't you get credit for it? I mean is this not what people said about Obama getting Bin Laden?

Originally posted by socool8520
If something happens on your watch, don't you get credit for it? I mean is this not what people said about Obama getting Bin Laden?
Nah the Trump phone call controversy is way more important than ISIS.

^ It would seem that way.

It's utterly meaningless they still have cells across Europe, and multiple generations of children in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan who lived under a constant state of warfare due to US foreign policy. These kids will then become the future Salafists and radical extremists built off of the wars of the 2000s. ISIS is the symptom of a larger epidemic hag isn't going away and there will be another group to replace them so long as we keep killing people in the Middle East. We've not even begun to see the end of the repercussions for our foreign policy

^ Oh, so these guys won't murder anyone if we just leave? Good to know. lol

Considering we've been blowing up their countries for decades, the onus is on you to prove we've made the region better.

^ No it isn't. I didn't say we made it better, but it's crazy to think that we are the major problem. The Middle Eastern countries have been fighting each forever.

Yeah, it's not like killing 250k-500k in Jraq and wrecking cities like Mosul, Kabul, and annihilating countries wholesale like Libya and Yemen helps at all. Please show me any Middle Eastern country that cluster bombs, dronestrikes, and has caused multiple failed states due to geopolitical meddling like the US. I'll wait

Are you arguing with some invisible phantom the rest of us can't see, Cart? Because almost nothing you've said so far has anything to do with anything socool said.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Nah the Trump phone call controversy is way more important than ISIS.

Don't forget the Russian facebook ads. Important stuff, they even got to Pokemon Go.

Originally posted by socool8520
^ No it isn't. I didn't say we made it better, but it's crazy to think that we are the major problem. The Middle Eastern countries have been fighting each forever.

It's almost like he thinks the problem is us, because if the problem isn't us then it's the elephant in the room with the bomb strapped to its back screaming allahu akbar.

Anyways, kudos to Trump for this

Originally posted by Surtur

It's almost like he thinks the problem is us, because if the problem isn't us then it's the elephant in the room with the bomb strapped to its back screaming allahu akbar.

Do you think it's harder or easier to convince said Muslim to strap a bomb to his back if he's seen his family killed and his country wrecked because a shitlord dictator was propped up by a Western country and then later had to be removed via force, which destabilized the country?

ISIS is just the present face of Islamic Extremism, the next will be more insidious as it will be fighting on our doorsteps. I have many, many, many Muslim friends both male and female and they do not want to spread Islam by force, they often give me books and things trying to convert me, because they see it as saving me. It isn't going to work clearly and I do worry when all Muslims are tarred with the same brush. But what's coming isn't going to be funny or pretty and evil people will use it to push agenda's of hate because that is who they are and equally evil people will push equally heinous agenda's of hate in response. What's coming when ISIS fall is a response in our own countries and in Arabic countries who were against ISIS, they will decentralise and work as cells and it will go on for decades.

I don't buy that. Not at all...

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
. I have many, many, many Muslim friends both male and female

Not At ALL!

Something even worse than ISIS? Oh boy, I can hardly wait...

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
ISIS is just the present face of Islamic Extremism, the next will be more insidious as it will be fighting on our doorsteps. I have many, many, many Muslim friends both male and female and they do not want to spread Islam by force, they often give me books and things trying to convert me, because they see it as saving me. It isn't going to work clearly and I do worry when all Muslims are tarred with the same brush. But what's coming isn't going to be funny or pretty and evil people will use it to push agenda's of hate because that is who they are and equally evil people will push equally heinous agenda's of hate in response. What's coming when ISIS fall is a response in our own countries and in Arabic countries who were against ISIS, they will decentralise and work as cells and it will go on for decades.

I will convert you to the proper path one of these days, Steve.

Robbie does know that road. It is pretty wide and paved with good intentions.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you think it's harder or easier to convince said Muslim to strap a bomb to his back if he's seen his family killed and his country wrecked because a shitlord dictator was propped up by a Western country and then later had to be removed via force, which destabilized the country?

I think it'd be easier to convince a Muslim to do that then...say, a Buddhist or a Jainist. Or even a Christian. Do you disagree?

Originally posted by Surtur
I think it'd be easier to convince a Muslim to do that then...say, a Buddhist or a Jainist. Or even a Christian. Do you disagree?
Wouldn't know as we don't bomb the sh!t out of or prop tryants up in majority Christian, janist or Buddhist countries.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Wouldn't know as we don't bomb the sh!t out of or prop tryants up in majority Christian, janist or Buddhist countries.

Well, you usually don't beat up the people that are on your team so...

Originally posted by Surtur

It's almost like he thinks the problem is us, because if the problem isn't us then it's the elephant in the room with the bomb strapped to its back screaming allahu akbar.
You realize the concept of their being issues from inside Muslim counties and us causing issues ourselves aren't mutually exclusive concepts?

Originally posted by socool8520
Well, you usually don't beat up the people that are on your team so...
Why or why we don't bomb them doesn't change that it's folly to act like we can assume what a Christian would do if their country suffered the transgressions we often commit with majority muslim nations. This hypothetical Surt's trying to form here doesn't get us anywhere.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Why or why we don't bomb them doesn't change that it's folly to act like we can assume what a Christian would do if their country suffered the transgressions we often commit with majority muslim nations. This hypothetical Surt's trying to form here doesn't get us anywhere.

It's also folly to assume that countries that have been warring with each other forever are only doing so now because of us, but that bandwagon was jumped on fairly quick. lol

Originally posted by socool8520
It's also folly to assume that countries that have been warring with each other forever are only doing so now because of us, but that bandwagon was jumped on fairly quick. lol
Nobody has argued they are only warring because of us, that doesn't man our actions haven't further exacerbated the issues that were there or even created new ones. A bad situation can be made worse.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Wouldn't know as we don't bomb the sh!t out of or prop tryants up in majority Christian, janist or Buddhist countries.

Dude...this is a silly statement lol. Think about it for a second. We are talking about suicide bombers. You think if Christians were bombed they'd respond with...suicide bombers? Or rather you are saying you just don't know?

Do...okay, let me ask you: what does that faith teach about suicide? Is it a crazy cult that says you'll be rewarded for suicide as long as you kill some non-believers when you do it?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Nobody has argued they are only warring because of us, that doesn't man our actions haven't further exacerbated the issues that were there or even created new ones. A bad situation can be made worse.

That's pretty much what Carthage did.

Some of these countries asked us for our aid. Now I would love to pull every American out and let those people keep fighting about the important things like religion and what not, but then we would be criticized for not helping the less fortunate nations.

Originally posted by socool8520
That's pretty much what Carthage did.

Carthage never implied or tried to suggest that our actions were the only reason terrorism exists or that terrorism would magically go away if we left these countries. He argued our intervention was making things worse and that things would be better if we left, not that things would automatically become good.
Originally posted by socool8520

Some of these countries asked us for our aid. Now I would love to pull every American out and let those people keep fighting about the important things like religion and what not, but then we would be criticized for not helping the less fortunate nations.
Then let them criticize us.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Carthage never implied or tried to suggest that our actions were the only reason terrorism exists or that terrorism would magically go away if we left these countries. He argued our intervention was making things worse and that things would be better if we left, not that things would automatically become good.

Then let them criticize us.

There is no guarantee things would be better. Less precision bombs? Sure, but still the same amount of suicide bombs. Don't really see a stoppage of coups or rampant murder either.

Ok

Originally posted by Surtur
I think it'd be easier to convince a Muslim to do that then...say, a Buddhist or a Jainist. Or even a Christian. Do you disagree?

You dodged my point while turning it around as an attack on Muslims. Clever?

Originally posted by Robtard
You dodged my point while turning it around as an attack on Muslims. Clever?

I feel like if you genuinely felt it wouldn't be easier to convince Muslims to do it than Christians, etc. you'd have made that known. So okie dokie, all I needed to know.

Originally posted by Surtur
I feel like if you genuinely felt it wouldn't be easier to convince Muslims to do it than Christians, etc. you'd have made that known. So okie dokie, all I needed to know.

Anyone can be convinced if you've made them suffer, you intellectually dishonest ass. It's not a skin color, race or religious thing.

eg During the Vietnam war Vietnamese civilians sympathetic to the North would run into groups of GI's with a grenade or other explosive, killing themselves in order to kill Americans. Why? Because their country was (and had been for a very long) being torn apart and their loved ones killed because of Western interest/meddling.

edit: In case you're wondering, Vietnam is predominantly Buddhist, 86%.

Originally posted by Robtard
Anyone can be convinced if you've made them suffer, you intellectually dishonest ass. It's not a skin color, race or religious thing.

eg During the Vietnam war Vietnamese civilians sympathetic to the North would run into groups of GI's with a grenade or other explosive, killing themselves in order to kill Americans. Why? Because their country was (and had been for a very long) being torn apart and their loved ones killed because of Western interest/meddling.

edit: In case you're wondering, Vietnam is predominantly Buddhist

Rob, I didn't ask if anyone could be convinced. I was asking about the ease in with which they would be convinced in comparison to others. Again, I feel like because you just felt you needed to make the distinction you did, you know the Muslims could be more easily convinced.

Originally posted by Surtur
Rob, I didn't ask if anyone could be convinced. I was asking about the ease in with which they would be convinced in comparison to others. Again, I feel like because you just felt you needed to make the distinction you did, you know the Muslims could be more easily convinced.

What you did is initially dodge my point because it destroyed your narrative while putting forth your own biased agenda. I've made that clear and used an example to show that.

But I guess we can now rank Buddhist as being just as "bad" as Muslims, using your rules. Poor Buddhist.

Originally posted by Robtard
What you did is initially dodge my point because it destroyed your narrative while putting forth your own biased agenda. I've made that clear and used an example to show that.

But I guess we can now rank Buddhist as being just as "bad" as Muslims, using your rules. Poor Buddhist.

Lol but Rob...can you show me where I say they would never do that? I said it would be easier to convince Muslims to do it.

So no, Buddhists aren't as bad as Muslims lol. Not even close.

Now Rob, a true sign of how serious you should be taken is if you come and try to pull your "oh you're flipping!" stuff. Since I never said these things are impossible, I never said any man is 100% immune. I said a certain group might be more easily swayed than others. Do you honestly disagree?

"it would be easier to convince muslims to do it" is not only conjecture, but proves nothing regarding Rob's point.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
"it would be easier to convince muslims to do it" is not only conjecture, but proves nothing regarding Rob's point.

And his point is irrelevant to me. Because my point isn't that only Muslims get angry over seeing people they care about die.

My point is that their ideology is more welcoming to this suicidal "I'll explode you and it'll be okay if I kill folk when I do it!" mentality.

Do you disagree with me on that?

Originally posted by Surtur
And his point is irrelevant to me.

Then why respond?

If you're not going to address what someone is saying, why address them at all?


Don't know and don't care. That has no bearing on whether or not we should be doing as much to these countries as we do or whether we've made things worse for these countries.

I can assure you though that as the vast vast majority of Muslims don't try and killing people, the "Ideology" only applies to radicals, it doesn't speak for Muslims as a whole.

And whether or not they're muslim Christian, or Buddhist, if you commit transgressions towards a group of people, they're more likely to respond aggressively.

He has to continue avoiding my point and push his own agenda because he knows what I said is true and it doesn't gel with his prejudices towards Muslims.

Originally posted by socool8520
There is no guarantee things would be better. Less precision bombs? Sure, but still the same amount of suicide bombs. Don't really see a stoppage of coups or rampant murder either.

That there would still be problems doesn't mean the problems wouldn't be less severe if we didn't keep intervening.

Originally posted by carthage
It's utterly meaningless they still have cells across Europe, and multiple generations of children in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan who lived under a constant state of warfare due to US foreign policy. These kids will then become the future Salafists and radical extremists built off of the wars of the 2000s. ISIS is the symptom of a larger epidemic hag isn't going away and there will be another group to replace them so long as we keep killing people in the Middle East. We've not even begun to see the end of the repercussions for our foreign policy This is one of the most cynical things I've ever read.

To claim that the fall of the caliphate is utterly meaningless is to misunderstand the movement we are up against. ISIS was such a potent entity at recruiting potential radicals worldwide precisely because of what their existence symbolized: an actual caliphate that was ruled by Sharia Law. This is the visionary idea that groups like Al Queada preached from day one. And they only ever managed to partially begin to realize that dream by taking refuge under Taliban rule. But ISIS literally started conquering land to serve as the bedrock for the caliphate that they envision will someday rule the world. The fall of such a caliphate can only be bad news for ISIS.

It obviously doesn't mean the end of Islamic extremism, but that's an entirely different matter. And your conceptualization of Islamic terror as being purely motivated by the backlash against US military operations is short-sighted, to say the least. It's just as much a rejection of modern liberal western values as it is a rejection of US military presence in the Middle East.

IT is always fun to see Robbie keep using the same old plays out of the Liberal's Political Playbook.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
This is one of the most cynical things I've ever read.

To claim that the fall of the caliphate is utterly meaningless is to misunderstand the movement we are up against. ISIS was such a potent entity at recruiting potential radicals worldwide precisely because of what their existence symbolized: an actual caliphate that was ruled by Sharia Law. This is the visionary idea that groups like Al Queada preached from day one. And they only ever managed to partially begin to realize that dream by taking refuge under Taliban rule. But ISIS literally started conquering land to serve as the bedrock for the caliphate that they envision will someday rule the world. The fall of such a caliphate can only be bad news for ISIS.

It obviously doesn't mean the end of Islamic extremism, but that's an entirely different matter. And your conceptualization of Islamic terror as being purely motivated by the backlash against US military operations is short-sighted, to say the least. It's just as much a rejection of modern liberal western values as it is a rejection of US military presence in the Middle East.

Seriously, this. No matter how much people want to close their eyes, Islamic Fundamentalism is a thing and a pretty huge a thing as it is.

Yeah but they vote Leftist Progressive in the Countries they erm....MIGRATE TOO ...so all that can be overlooked.