ISIS left so weakened by airstrikes and desertion it could be destroyed in just HOURS

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Whoa now! You accused me of being hypocritical, not the whole country. Don't move the goal posts there with your accusations.

Where did I accuse your whole country of it. I said that there would be widespread concern. I never said there is widespread hypocrisy now.

Look, don't pretend like this situation is unique to yourselves. America has had plenty of waves of immigration that we've tried to label as terrorists or criminals. Plus, we ARE as a country discussing bringing some of those refugees here (which I don't have a problem with).

If Syrian refugees were entering the US of A then there would be concern about ISIS members among them. Don't even try to act like this would not be the case.

The US is discussing taking in something around 100,000 refugees.

So 0 at this point.

Where did I say you weren't entitled to have those reservations? I didn't realize the disagreeing with someone on the internet was being authoritarian...

Really?

So why this rant as response?

So what do you plan to accomplish by saying this? Should we just look at refugees with wary eyes? Should we enact policies to pick them out? Like I was saying earlier in this post, many want to establish that terrorists are hiding among the refugees as a sort of stepping stone to trying to enact dehumanizing policies against them. So do you think the percentage of Muslims that may or may not be members of ISIS among the refugees is high enough to take action? Or are you just trying to muddy the waters of the discussion?

You clearly disapprove of my reservations, as if I am not supposed to have them.

I dunno, are you always so confrontational and hyperbolic to people for no reason?

The fact that you seem to think that protection of the feelings of refugees trumps legitimate concerns and desired security measures of the countries taking them in.

I consider this extreme leftism.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: DJW001

Propaganda is sometimes accepted by those who refuse to think, those who do not question what they are told. Propaganda is also a way of getting ones point accross in order to push an agenda.

To be honest many people take things at face value these days and believe it partly because they want to and perhaps because they are ignorant about a subject.

I know, it's ridiculous... which reminds me: whatever happened to that Chinese fleet you believed was rushing to Syria? I kept trying to explain to you why it was implausible propaganda, but you wouldn't't listen...

As to this war ending soon, I doubt that, ISIL isnt weakened until the host countries that are spawning these terrorists stops sending them into Syria to jihad against the Assad government. After the surrounding countries stop sending in the terrorists only then will the war stop.

No countries are "sending in" terrorists. Saudi Arabia is supporting them financially, but terrorists are coming on their own. They are on a spiritual path, as you should know.

Question is what would it take to get these countries to stop sending terrorists into Syria? Are we looking at regime change in multiple middle eastern countries?

Actually, the United States and EU are stopping volunteers as they try to leave.

originally posted by: RogueWave
Where did I accuse your whole country of it. I said that there would be widespread concern. I never said there is widespread hypocrisy now.

You accused me of being hypocritical because you assumed that I'd have a problem with refugess if they were coming to the US instead of Europe. Here is your text:

So is it not a legitimate concern? If they were crossing America's borders you would all be up in arms, no doubt about it.

THEN, when I said that I'd have little to no problem with it, you moved the goal posts back by saying this:

Yes, hypocrisy. If these refugess were at your borders there would be widespread concern within your country that terrorists are among them.

That is moving the goalposts. Please admit when you made a mistake. I extended that courtesy to you...

If Syrian refugees were entering the US of A then there would be concern about ISIS members among them. Don't even try to act like this would not be the case.

I'm not, nor have I ever suggested there wouldn't be. Again you originally said the -I- would have a problem with them, not the country as a whole. Of course there would be people in this country such as yourself who'd have a problem with them. They aren't even HERE yet and we've already got idiots on the right saying that they are a bunch of terrorists and that we shouldn't let them over here. Heck a few of our Presidential hopefuls have already promised to deport them if elected President (and again, I stress that they aren't even here yet).

So 0 at this point.

Again, the US has had its fair share of immigration "scares". Heck, I'd say that the US has far more experience with them than the EU does. Did you forget how there was that controversy here in the states around Mexicans coming across the border and supposedly being cartel members? Then we've had other scares where we were told that the cartels are sending ISIS members over the boarder. Like I said, don't pretend like I can't have any experience with what you are talking about.

Really?

So why this rant as response?

Rant? A rant is a one-sided conversation. I could have sworn that we were having a back and forth conversation here. I see you are still insisting on being as confrontational as possible to me.

You clearly disapprove of my reservations, as if I am not supposed to have them.

I don't agree with them, but that is the point of conversations right? To talk out your disagreements and figure out some common ground? You clearly seem mad at me for disagreeing with you. Why is that? Am I not allowed to have a difference of opinion from you?

The fact that you seem to think that protection of the feelings of refugees trumps legitimate concerns and desired security measures of the countries taking them in.

I consider this extreme leftism.

Protection of feelings? I'm not protecting anyone's feelings. I'm just making an interpretation of what I think the real numbers of terrorists are among the refugees. I believe that the numbers are so low, that they really aren't worth worrying about. Therefore, I believe, that ranting and raving about a bunch of refugees possibly being terrorists is an unfounded accusation.

PS: Why are you making this into a partisan issue? Have I called you extreme right in this thread? No. In fact, I've told you on several different occasions that I'm trying to have a civil conversation with you, yet your confrontationalism is making that VERY hard. Do you want a discussion or do you just want to rant angrily at people who disagree with you?

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: Krazysh0t




The fact that you seem to think that protection of the feelings of refugees trumps legitimate concerns and desired security measures of the countries taking them in.

We're not talking about the refugees feelings we're talking about the refugees lives.

I consider this extreme leftism.

That's because you are a right wing Ba'athist, right?

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: Krazysh0t




The fact that you seem to think that protection of the feelings of refugees trumps legitimate concerns and desired security measures of the countries taking them in.

We're not talking about the refugees feelings we're talking about the refugees lives.

I consider this extreme leftism.

That's because you are a right wing Ba'athist, right?

originally posted by: Macenroe82
They should just pull the troops out and drop a nuke. Not only will that get any stragglers, but will also exterminate any others thinking that joining these isis slobs is a good idea

LMAO

Ever hear of this thing called "fallout"

How Dick Cheney of you

a reply to: DJW001

No countries are "sending in" terrorists. Saudi Arabia is supporting them financially, but terrorists are coming on their own. They are on a spiritual path, as you should know.

So if Saudi Arabia pays for their training, pays for their equipment and weapons, pays for their transportation, but the King of Saudi Arabia himself isn't driving the bus the Terrorists are on, that somehow equates to Saudi not 'sending the terrorists in'...does it? Seriously?

Besides, the USA is up to it's neck in creating terrorists to do it's dirty work in Syria...even more than Saudi is.

Bloody hypocrites. Strip away rights and freedoms because of 'the war on terror', then directly fund terrorists to attempt regime change in Syria..which goes awry when ISIL begins rampaging around the region, who apparently only seem able to be stopped by '5 minutes' of Russian bombing, when months of bombing by the USA curiously seems unable to make so much as a dent in anything ISIL does.

But hey...why would the US kill the golden goose? Russia doesn't seem to have the same money making agenda and are surprise-surprise very quickly making a mockery out of America's 'war on terror' rhetoric, and showing it to be the contrived, rights and freedoms stripping, M.E. crushing, money making business it always was.

a reply to: MysterX

Sending in implies the group's are obeying orders, when, in fact, they are functioning autonomously. That's why they have been so poorly coordinated.

To return to the topic of this thread, the purpose of the opinion piece in the OP is to allow NATO to say that it was their months of operations that softened Daesh up, and that Putin rushed in for the kill so he could take credit for their work. Still want to keep bumping this thread?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is moving the goalposts.

Even though I said the exact same thing twice? You can argue that it wouldn't matter to you, but that is the hypocrisy. I don't believe you.

But, ok, let's say it is not hypocrisy. I am still right in saying that a lot of americans would think the same thing that europeans are thinking, which was the point, since you were acting like people had no right to think this.

Again, the US has had its fair share of immigration "scares". Heck, I'd say that the US has far more experience with them than the EU does. Did you forget how there was that controversy here in the states around Mexicans coming across the border and supposedly being cartel members? Then we've had other scares where we were told that the cartels are sending ISIS members over the boarder. Like I said, don't pretend like I can't have any experience with what you are talking about.

And this is supposed to disprove my point? Lol.

Rant? A rant is a one-sided conversation. I could have sworn that we were having a back and forth conversation here. I see you are still insisting on being as confrontational as possible to me.

Yes rant. You were trying to discredit my statement by summing up a things that took nothing away from my comment.

Am I not allowed to have a difference of opinion from you?

Am I not allowed to accurately describe the way you share yours aswell?

Protection of feelings? I'm not protecting anyone's feelings.

You took offense to my concern and responded with this,

Should we just look at refugees with wary eyes? Should we enact policies to pick them out?

Why shouldn't we? The worst thing that is going to happen to innocent refugees is that it might hurt their feelings. I think my national security trumps that.

I believe that the numbers are so low, that they really aren't worth worrying about. Therefore, I believe, that ranting and raving about a bunch of refugees possibly being terrorists is an unfounded accusation.

Can you make any gaurantees? Again, when is the US of A going to take in these refugees? Very easy to talk for you.

PS: Why are you making this into a partisan issue? Have I called you extreme right in this thread?

I don't need to be called anything in order to make an observation.

No. In fact, I've told you on several different occasions that I'm trying to have a civil conversation with you, yet your confrontationalism is making that VERY hard. Do you want a discussion or do you just want to rant angrily at people who disagree with you?

Lol, so I am ranting now.

But, but, I only wanted a civil conversation. Rant rant, whine whine.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: DJW001

No countries are "sending in" terrorists. Saudi Arabia is supporting them financially, but terrorists are coming on their own. They are on a spiritual path, as you should know.

So if Saudi Arabia pays for their training, pays for their equipment and weapons, pays for their transportation, but the King of Saudi Arabia himself isn't driving the bus the Terrorists are on, that somehow equates to Saudi not 'sending the terrorists in'...does it? Seriously?

Besides, the USA is up to it's neck in creating terrorists to do it's dirty work in Syria...even more than Saudi is.

Bloody hypocrites. Strip away rights and freedoms because of 'the war on terror', then directly fund terrorists to attempt regime change in Syria..which goes awry when ISIL begins rampaging around the region, who apparently only seem able to be stopped by '5 minutes' of Russian bombing, when months of bombing by the USA curiously seems unable to make so much as a dent in anything ISIL does.

But hey...why would the US kill the golden goose? Russia doesn't seem to have the same money making agenda and are surprise-surprise very quickly making a mockery out of America's 'war on terror' rhetoric, and showing it to be the contrived, rights and freedoms stripping, M.E. crushing, money making business it always was.

LOL so very true its not just the Saudis though its various nations, I consider many of the terrorist mercs comming in to most likely be special forces. Yes they are being sent in, no they arent just going to fight against the Assad government of thier own accord. Just take a few brain cells to see this is an agenda that has everything to do with oil and money.

originally posted by: RogueWave
Even though I said the exact same thing twice? You can argue that it wouldn't matter to you, but that is the hypocrisy. I don't believe you.

But, ok, let's say it is not hypocrisy. I am still right in saying that a lot of americans would think the same thing that europeans are thinking, which was the point, since you were acting like people had no right to think this.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? First off, if I tell you that I wouldn't have a problem with it, what makes that statement unbelievable from me? You've already admitted that you aren't familiar with my posting history here on ATS. So where are you getting the reasoning that I'm lying? Second off, I was NOT acting like someone didn't have the right to speak their mind. Don't accuse me of things I never did.

And this is supposed to disprove my point? Lol.

No, it was meant to show you that America and thus myself are no strangers to debates such as this.

Yes rant. You were trying to discredit my statement by summing up a things that took nothing away from my comment.

You clearly don't know what a rant is...

Am I not allowed to accurately describe the way you share yours aswell?

Ask an administrator. I haven't banned you or restricted you from saying a single thing in this thread. I HAVE asked you on more than one occasion to show me a bit more respect, but clearly you are incapable of this.

Why shouldn't we? The worst thing that is going to happen to innocent refugees is that it might hurt their feelings. I think my national security trumps that.

Your opinion about the political leanings of refugees has WHAT to do with national security exactly? You were admantant earlier that you weren't in favor of instituting policies against the refugees by assuming they are terrorists. So why is your opinion indicative of national security?

Can you make any gaurantees? Again, when is the US of A going to take in these refugees? Very easy to talk for you.

I can't guarantee anything in this world. Nothing is definitely proven. As for when the USA is going to take in these refugees, that's a good question. We are currently battling Republican opposition to the idea because our Republicans are more than willing to run with the rhetoric that all the refugees (or a number of them that actually matter) are terrorists.

Lol, so I am ranting now.

But, but, I only wanted a civil conversation. Rant rant, whine whine.

I think I'm going to stop responding to you after this post. If you refuse to respect my opinion or talk to me like an adult, then I guess I shouldn't be wasting time with you. I'll let you carry on with the childishness with someone else.

a reply to: DJW001

We're not talking about the refugees feelings we're talking about the refugees lives.

We? This comment was between me and Krazyshot.

But since you are so concerned with their lives. What is your nation doing, except causing this whole mess?

That's because you are a right wing Ba'athist, right?

No, because I am a realistic Dutchman making a simple observation.

Your accusations are pathetic.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you know who I am?

Judging from the tone of your post, someone very important......

Oh noes. That means the US has to create another boogeyman to terrorize the populace and keep us in line. What will they use to eventually implement Martial Law?

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Oil? Syria produces less oil than Papua, New Guinea!

a reply to: RogueWave

Although only about a thousand Syrian refugees have made it to the United States, this is because transportation her from the Levant i$ expensive. The White House ha called for admitting another 10,,000, but I'm not sure what plans are in place to transport them.

a reply to: tony9802

Russia Claims ISIS Now On The Ropes As Fighters Desert After 60 Airstrikes In 72 Hours

I find this interesting...

Now obviously one must consider the source here, but Kremlin spin tactics aside, one cannot help but be amazed with the pace at which this is apparently unfolding. If any of the above is even close to accurate, it means that Russia is on schedule to declare victory over ISIS (and everyone else it looks like) in a matter of weeks, which would not only be extremely embarrassing for Washington, but would also effectively prove that the US has never truly embarked on an honest effort to rid Syria of the extremist groups the Western media claims are the scourge of humanity.

www.zerohedge.com...

Seems it may not be exactly true, as even zerohedge questions the accuracy of the info.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your opinion about the political leanings of refugees has WHAT to do with national security exactly?

My opinion about their political leaning has nothing to do with it. Letting them in without doing thorrough background checks does.

You were admantant earlier that you weren't in favor of instituting policies against the refugees by assuming they are terrorists.

I said that terrorists might be among them and I said that I don't think they are all terrorists, this doesn't mean that all of them shouldn't be checked out though.

I never said I was against such policies.

a reply to: purplemer

Wonder what the US has been doing? Trying to avoid bombing civilians. Russia doesn't have that constraint. Here is what it gets them:

In a sign that sectarianism is further inflaming the region, a group of Saudi clerics on Monday called for jihad against Assad's Alawite regime, Iran and Russia.
In a statement tinged with sectarian references, 53 Saudi clerics said Sunni Muslim states had an obligation to help defend Islamists in Syria.
"The holy warriors of Syria are defending the whole Islamic nation. Trust them and support them ... because if they are defeated, God forbid, it will be the turn of one Sunni country after another," the clerics, who are not tied to the government, said.
"The Western-Russian coalition with the Safavids (Iran) and the Nusairis (Alawites) are making a real war against the Sunni people and their countries," the statement said.
Meanwhile, Syria's Muslim Brotherhood on Monday also called for jihad against Russian occupation, according to militant websites. The Brotherhood stated Syria is "witnessing a sheer and clear Russian occupation" and resistance was legitimate.

www.dw.com...

We should see the first suicide bombings directed at Russians in Syria within twenty four hours. This will be followed in a few weeks by bombings against Russian targets in Kazakhstan. These latter will be false flags, however.