That sounds like every single response Trump has given to questions about his policies. As for me personally, if you want to avail yourself to any of the other ISIS threads around, you'll find my plan.
I didn;t ask you your plan. You said the Republican's plan would attack the good guys and not the bad guys. I am asking you what Democrat candidate's ISIS plan do you think would take out ISIS and not hurt any good people.
Then prepare to do that forever (and still fail), because this isn't a nationalist movement that can be squashed. There won't be any "Good Germans who were just doing what they were told" who come out of the woodwork after you occupy Iraq and Syria. You will be fighting this fight until the end of time. That is why comparing it to WW2 is so insanely stupid.
No I didn't. I made fun of you for acting as if the following... People are saying to avoid collective punishment, bombing areas and causing extensive collateral damage. People are saying not to discriminate against peace loving muslims in the U.S, shutting down mosques and throwing them in camps. Isn't exactly the kind of crazy crap that is coming out of prominent Republicans mouths right now. Because it is. Prominent Republicans are literally suggesting ramping up the war efforts (which will inevitably increase civilian causalities), denying refuge to people, discriminating against them, or throwing them into camps. Hillary's plan: probably slightly less stupid than the Republican plan Bernie's plan: probably slightly less stupid than Hillary's Unfortunately they're all probably very interventionalist and ultimately wrong.
So you are maintaining your position that an organization called "al qaeda (the base) in iraq", created in response to the American occupation of Iraq, was based outside of iraq?
People want to tank our economy by having 100k us troops in Iraq/Syria. That is not a good solution. Do you fools not realize that many of the people who joined ISIS were NOT radicals but Iraqis whose lives got worse under U.S. occupation - who's brothers, fathers, and sons were killed by random bombs and mistaken identity? This is well documented. Armed conflict helps radicalize people. It's not a religious thing - it's a angry thing! You have to find a different way to fight these guys. You have to let Arabs/Muslims/Africans/Asians fight their own battles with U.S. and world support.
Yes. They were substantially less hostile, which is why they surrendered to prevent their society and millions of citizens and milennium old culture from being eradicated by a bunch of nuclear weapons. Contrast thus with ISIS whose goal is eradication and destruction and who has no society other than snuff movies, a few thousand dip****s and a bunch twitter followers Did you seriously not know this? I'm asking you seriously. This is very, very serious.
Thank you for putting that into better terms than I could. ISIS is a death cult. Their goal is to kill and die in the defense and/or name of Islam. Planting your flag on their supposed territories, no matter how authoritatively you do so, is not going to sway them from achieving their goal. Not even to mention the entire difference in the whole nation-state boundaries, standing armies, government, etc.
Damn that is funny. There were Japanese on islands who didn't surrender for twenty years after the war was over. The whole reason for the A bomb was that they were never going to surrender. Now you're an expert on ISIS, and you cannot even name one person in ISIS without looking it up on the internet. This is very, very serious.
Nothing you type is very serious and everybody here knows it. Even after 2 atomic bombs the Japanese came VERY close to not surrendering...essentially choosing death over surrender. The ONLY reason they didn't was because their "God" the Emperor decided to "endure the unendurable". Even then, many in their govt considered overthrowing the Japanese govt. AND THEY HAD BEEN NUKED TWICE. One man prevented it. Read your history. Read about the Japanese of that time. Heard of the Rape of Nanking? The Battan Death March? It makes what ISIS has done look like a picnic. They murdered MILLIONS and they fought to the last man on island after island...it was considered cowardice on their part to surrender. I can't believe that you know so little about history as to suggest that the Japanese of 1945 weren't just as bad if not worse than ISIS. Meanwhile, ISIS has grown from approximately 700 fighters at its low ebb (according to the current CIA director John Brennan) in about 2010 to between 20,000 to 35,000 estimated fighters today. It is the best funded terrorist organization in the history of the world. It controls territory roughly the size of Great Britain. It has oil, refineries, massive gold supplies from the banks it's robbed, and taxes the people who live there for everything. It has its own online publications and presence, cyber war efforts, is working to establish a chemical and bacteriological weapons. It has a presence in multiple nations around the world and the proven capability to carry out attacks as well. It is for all intents and purposes an emerging Islamic Jihadist nation. Downplaying them as a bunch "dip****s who has no society other than snuff movies, a few thousand dip****s and a bunch twitter followers." is maybe the most shocking thing I've read here today. WAKE THE **** UP.
No, you made that YOUR position. My position...which is the historically correct position... is that AQI was an organization that until 2011 was primarily manned by foreign fighters. I already gave you the link to look at. At that point, it began morphing into today's ISIS.
yea u did what plan? what plan? Any one who pretends like you can take out ISIS without civilian causalities is moronic. ISIS hides behind these people; literally and figuratively using them as human shields. And they have chosen Muslims as their human shields. They hide in their countries, in their mosques, and in their schools. Because of this, tragically, Muslims will die/suffer the most with any attempt to take out ISIS. The alternative is to let ISIS strive and grow stronger, in which case more Muslims suffer.
Yes, you're correct, there were a handful of Japanese soldiers living in caves off in Indonesia and whatnot for years who refused to accept the news that the surrender was true and continued to "fight" bushido style by....living in caves for decades like crazed animals. The rest of the 71 million Japanese on the home islands who peacefully and without any organized resistance at all accepted the surrender of Emperor Hirohito, as well as the millions of Japanese Imperial army and navy personnel stationed abroad who did not decide to live in caves for a few decades. How this has any rational relation to a bunch of ****heads a half a hundred years later sending Jihad snapchats is entirely beyond me, so you'll have to explain further.
Yes, they were very close to not surrendering, with the exception of the 99.999999% of the Japanese population, military included, that did in fact surrender, unconditionally. "close to" makes no logical sense. Your analogy is ignorant and silly It doesn't matter if in an alternate universe, you are "close to" being right. We are not in that one. You asked why the Japanese occupation was different and less violent than the Iraqi one - the answer is - because reality, for reasons stated, it is and was and nobody who knows anything about either would make that parallel without expecting to be laughed at and dismissed, which you are. Same question to you as to the previous: How this has any rational relation to a bunch of ****heads a half a hundred years later sending Jihad snapchats is entirely beyond me, so you'll have to explain further. LOL, waht a scared little peanut you must be. Does this cause you to pee sitting down? ISIS and their big scary gold reserves have a statistically "close to" zero ability to impact my life, and I ****ing don't live in a trailer in Tomball fixing air conditioners like you. ****, bro, I saw Tower 2 come down with my own eyes while standing (and then running) on the corner of Ann st and Park Place, kiddo, so if you presume to lecture me about eh consequence of a terrorist attack, i can tell you I've been there and done that, and I can tell yout hat living in fear like a giant p***y about big scary jihadis and their red mercury is not a great way to go through life. Big scary ISIS as a nation state is not even a pimple on the face of a flea compared to North Korea or Iran, let alone the US of A and scared b****es should get stitches for suggesting otherwise. Scared little pricks like you are why I have to take my shoes off and my laptop out - thanks a lot, you baby.
Dude, you claimed the Japanese were less hostile than ISIS. Then you try to give me a history lesson? How many countries has ISIS occupied, compared to Japan? How many Americans has ISIS killed, compared to Japan? How many humans has ISIS killed, compared to Japan? Make your case, because it looks pretty weak on the face of it.
Nay, they didn't consider choosing death. They were monster but practical. They surrender unconditionally to persevere life and nation when they knew they completely lost with no option after the Soviet enter the war. If the Soviet didn't enter the war, they would still surrender, but they were hoping for better terms.
When ISIS surrenders unconditionally, we can compare who was less hostile them or Japan in 1945, as ridiculous and inapt as the comparison may be. When do you think ISIS will surrender so we can bump this thread?
