WTF! Another war? In Africa?

by Original Quill Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:55 pm

Time wrote:The Defense Department Is Looking Into Why Four U.S. Soldiers Died in Niger
Eli Meixler
Oct 17, 2017

The Defense Department is opening an investigation into the deaths of four U.S. soldiers in Niger earlier this month, as President Trump faces criticism for how he has approached the bereaved families.

The probe will examine the military's preparation for the operation as questions swirl about the quality of the U.S. Africa Command's intelligence reports, including why the October 4 ambush wasn't anticipated, CNN reports.

The soldiers, part of a 12-strong Special Forces team led by Green Berets, were on their way back from a meeting with local community leaders when they were ambushed by a group of 50 ISIS-affiliated fighters armed with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades, according to CNN. The soldiers were reportedly only armed with rifles and their vehicles were not armored. The attack lasted 30 minutes until French air support dispersed the militants and helicopters evacuated American forces.

The four soldiers killed in the shootout— Staff Sgt. Bryan Black, Staff Sgt. Jeremiah Johnson, and Staff Sgt. Dustin Wright, and Sgt. La David Johnson — were the first American soldiers killed by hostile fire since the U.S. began providing training and assistance to local military forces, the New York Times reported. Another soldiers two injured in the attack and were taken to Niamey, the capital, about 124 miles away.

Trump Is Feuding With a Congresswoman Over a Soldier Killed in Niger. Why Was He Deployed There?

The probe is also expected to look into how one of the slain soldiers, Sgt. La David Johnson, became separated from the rest of the group. His body was recovered 48 hours later.

President Trump received criticism this past week for failing to personally address the incident or make phone calls to families of the slain soldiers. When Johnson's body was returned to Dover Air Force Base on October 7, Trump was golfing.

Trump has since begun calling the families. However in a 5-minute call with Johnson's widow on October 17, Trump told her that "he knew what he signed up for" joining the U.S. armed forces, "but when it happens it hurts anyway," according to Rep. Frederica Wilson, who spoke to Miami ABC affiliate station WPLG.

Wilson said: "It's so insensitive. He should have not have said that."
Johnson, who was 25, is survived by his widow, Myeshia, and two children. The couple are expecting another child.

Trump addressed his response to the attack in an October 16 press conference with Senator Mitch McConnell, saying that he had written letters to the families of the slain soldiers the previous weekend. He added that he was planning on making personal phone calls, and falsely claimed that former President Barack Obama "and the other presidents" did not make such calls in the past.

Infuriated former Obama aides hit back at the accusation, with former foreign policy advisor Ben Rhodes calling it "an outrageous and disrespectful lie even by Trump standards."Another former White House official, speaking with TIME earlier this week, said "President Trump’s claim is wrong. President Obama engaged families of the fallen and wounded warriors throughout his presidency through calls, letters, visits to Section 60 at Arlington, visits to Walter Reed, visits to Dover, and regular meetings with Gold Star Families at the White House and across the country."

"You? You will become a great nation, with responsibility of killing all babies around the world so that no human is left alive!"

I remember god anointing a group of us thusly, before we were given out parachutes and dropped off of the cloud. Or was that a dream? Or is this a dream...a nightmare, more likely? No question...we have a national policy of being incessantly at war round the clock.

Now it's Niger. I didn't even know we had a base in West Africa. Who knew? I guess wherever babies are born, it's up to us to kill them!

by Guest Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:09 pm

And whilst some us look back in concern, far more millions of babies die each year whilst the world sits back and not only says nothing, but even worse claims its not their problem. Thinking that to even help may end up killing some other babies. Never understanding for one second, that doing nothing is killing far more babies

Clearly the need of the many is outweighed by the selfish.

Case in point. Quill uses an emotive argument never understanding how people ever suffer of what they might actually want. He goes off what makes most people angry over. Harm to babies. Its his failing poor core argument against armed conflict. Neglecting that such arguments see far more babies dying, by doing nothing.

In WW2 Jews who had risked their lives to pass on intelligence of the holocaust to the Allies. Where they called for the allies to bomb Auschwitz. Where they would rather their own lives were sacrificed in order that no others would suffer at this concentration camp and in the hope some, if not many would have been saved.

Why do you think that is Quill?

by Original Quill Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:32 pm

So you think it's good to kill, didge? Is there an ulterior purpose...like, keep the population down? Something like that?

Or, are we just wired for war? Is it that we just need these emotional highs and lows about "other people" in our lives? Reminds me of the Aztec sacrificial ceremonies.

by Guest Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:39 pm

Original Quill wrote:So you think it's good to kill, didge? Is there an ulterior purpose...like, keep the population down? Something like that?

Or, are we wired for war? Is it that we just need these emotional highs and lows about "other people" in our lives? Reminds me of the Aztec sacrificial ceremonies.

Interesting. In what part of my post did I claim any killing was good?

You know that was not my point at all.

I am talking about the greater need should outweigh the need of the few.

If not, then we better change our whole perception here.

Like for example how we place women and children as first on a sinking ship. Why do we come to that view point when many men will die due to such a concept?

It may have some view to care but its inherant form is based on survival for the human race.

Now i asked you many questions and you are avoiding them.

Case in point. Quill uses an emotive argument never understanding how people ever suffer of what they might actually want. Or even how such a hate is indoctrinated within people. He goes off what makes most people angry over. Harm to babies. Its his failing poor core argument against armed conflict. Neglecting that such arguments see far more babies dying, by doing nothing.

In WW2 Jews who had risked their lives to pass on intelligence of the holocaust to the Allies. Where they called for the allies to bomb Auschwitz. Where they would rather their own lives were sacrificed in order that no others would suffer at this concentration camp and in the hope some, if not many would have been saved.

Why do you think that is Quill?

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:26 pm

MAP: The U.S. military currently has troops in these African countries ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/05/21/map-the-u-s-currently-has-troops-in-these-african-countries/
21 May 2014 ... The U.S. Air Force set up a drone base in Niamey, Niger, in 2013. The White House says it has around 100 military personnel in the country

by Original Quill Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:39 am

Rachael Maddow has just gotten to the bottom of why these four soldiers died. (And why Trump took 12-days to even announce their deaths--only after a reporter nagged him.)

It turns that that Chad has been the nation that has been carrying on the major ISIS opposition in Central Africa. Chad was the nation that was protecting American soldiers, when on operations in the area.

Chad was put on Trump's infamous "no-fly" list of Muslim countries whose citizens would be banned from the United States. Chad said: 'Good, we;re pulling out of the fight in Central Africa."

All of a sudden, these four soldiers were left hanging out, unprotected. They were attacked by 150-ISIS soldiers, and are now dead.

This is the president who cannot get clean drinking water to Puerto Rico. This is the president who fucked up in missions in Yemen and Syria. Now, this president's own polices have alienated a country, and left four American soldiers dead.

This is the president who is threatening No. Korea with nuclear war. Good luck, world.

by Original Quill Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:04 am

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:So you think it's good to kill, didge? Is there an ulterior purpose...like, keep the population down? Something like that?

Or, are we wired for war? Is it that we just need these emotional highs and lows about "other people" in our lives? Reminds me of the Aztec sacrificial ceremonies.

Interesting. In what part of my post did I claim any killing was good?

You know that was not my point at all.

I am talking about the greater need should outweigh the need of the few.

If not, then we better change our whole perception here.

Like for example how we place women and children as first on a sinking ship. Why do we come to that view point when many men will die due to such a concept?

It may have some view to care but its inherant form is based on survival for the human race.

Now i asked you many questions and you are avoiding them.

Case in point. Quill uses an emotive argument never understanding how people ever suffer of what they might actually want. Or even how such a hate is indoctrinated within people. He goes off what makes most people angry over. Harm to babies. Its his failing poor core argument against armed conflict. Neglecting that such arguments see far more babies dying, by doing nothing.

In WW2 Jews who had risked their lives to pass on intelligence of the holocaust to the Allies. Where they called for the allies to bomb Auschwitz. Where they would rather their own lives were sacrificed in order that no others would suffer at this concentration camp and in the hope some, if not many would have been saved.

Why do you think that is Quill?

My question first: why do we invent reasons for wars? It's gone on now for 10,000-years...long before Muslims were invented.

by Guest Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:45 am

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

Interesting. In what part of my post did I claim any killing was good?

You know that was not my point at all.

I am talking about the greater need should outweigh the need of the few.

If not, then we better change our whole perception here.

Like for example how we place women and children as first on a sinking ship. Why do we come to that view point when many men will die due to such a concept?

It may have some view to care but its inherant form is based on survival for the human race.

Now i asked you many questions and you are avoiding them.

Case in point. Quill uses an emotive argument never understanding how people ever suffer of what they might actually want. Or even how such a hate is indoctrinated within people. He goes off what makes most people angry over. Harm to babies. Its his failing poor core argument against armed conflict. Neglecting that such arguments see far more babies dying, by doing nothing.

In WW2 Jews who had risked their lives to pass on intelligence of the holocaust to the Allies. Where they called for the allies to bomb Auschwitz. Where they would rather their own lives were sacrificed in order that no others would suffer at this concentration camp and in the hope some, if not many would have been saved.

Why do you think that is Quill?

My question first: why do we invent reasons for wars? It's gone on now for 10,000-years...long before Muslims were invented.

Misdrection and you do not get to decide the rules.

Wars were not invented. Like many species, fights break out between groups due to many reasons.

Now try again, as seen you always avoid questions, when you know you will look very silly

Interesting. In what part of my post did I claim any killing was good?

You know that was not my point at all.

I am talking about the greater need should outweigh the need of the few.

If not, then we better change our whole perception here.

Like for example how we place women and children as first on a sinking ship. Why do we come to that view point when many men will die due to such a concept?

It may have some view to care but its inherant form is based on survival for the human race.

Now i asked you many questions and you are avoiding them.

Case in point. Quill uses an emotive argument never understanding how people ever suffer of what they might actually want. Or even how such a hate is indoctrinated within people. He goes off what makes most people angry over. Harm to babies. Its his failing poor core argument against armed conflict. Neglecting that such arguments see far more babies dying, by doing nothing.

In WW2 Jews who had risked their lives to pass on intelligence of the holocaust to the Allies. Where they called for the allies to bomb Auschwitz. Where they would rather their own lives were sacrificed in order that no others would suffer at this concentration camp and in the hope some, if not many would have been saved.

Why do you think that is Quill?

by Original Quill Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:51 pm

didge wrote:Wars were not invented. Like many species, fights break out between groups due to many reasons.

Wait a minute..."due to many reasons"?? That's not invention?? The question is, which came first, the fighting or the "many reasons"?

It seems to me that you are sidestepping the issue. Like the chicken/egg question, which predominates: the "reason" or the "predilection" to settle differences by war?

What you are suggesting is that war is simply a 'situational' matter, where conflict arises out of situations of limited resources, and rising need. But plenty of evidence exists--both biological and anthropological--to show that men were built for war. Often it is a combination of both: a basic disposition to conflict meets a situation that calls for conflict.

But lately, as you point out so often Didge, there is an increasing tendency to go to war over, not territory, or irrigation, but abstractions: socialism (Spain), communism (Soviets, China) and Islam (Iraq, Syria), or their opposition in each case. These are not situations, or if they are, they are far removed from immediate prizes such as territory, food. mates and dwellings.

Plus, since the invention of gun power and explosives, the conflicts have gotten bigger. Abstract reasons, to kill more people...are we still in the realm of "due to many reasons" if we have the capacity to annihilate? At some point might we just step back and conclude that we like to wage war, up to and including killing off the species? See, Keegan, John, A History of War (1993), chapter 2, section 1, "Why do Men Fight?"

by Guest Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:53 pm

Original Quill wrote:
didge wrote:Wars were not invented. Like many species, fights break out between groups due to many reasons.

Wait a minute..."due to many reasons"?? That's not invention?? The question is, which came first, the fighting or the "many reasons"?

Yet more misdrection.

There is many reasons people will engage in violence against each other, all irrelevant to the point I am trying to make, which you keep avoiding like the plague

Last chance

Interesting. In what part of my post did I claim any killing was good?

You know that was not my point at all.

I am talking about the greater need should outweigh the need of the few.

If not, then we better change our whole perception here.

Like for example how we place women and children as first on a sinking ship. Why do we come to that view point when many men will die due to such a concept?

It may have some view to care but its inherant form is based on survival for the human race.

Now i asked you many questions and you are avoiding them.

Case in point. Quill uses an emotive argument never understanding how people ever suffer of what they might actually want. Or even how such a hate is indoctrinated within people. He goes off what makes most people angry over. Harm to babies. Its his failing poor core argument against armed conflict. Neglecting that such arguments see far more babies dying, by doing nothing.

In WW2 Jews who had risked their lives to pass on intelligence of the holocaust to the Allies. Where they called for the allies to bomb Auschwitz. Where they would rather their own lives were sacrificed in order that no others would suffer at this concentration camp and in the hope some, if not many would have been saved.

Why do you think that is Quill?

by Original Quill Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:23 pm

Didge wrote:There is many reasons people will engage in violence against each other, all irrelevant to the point I am trying to make, which you keep avoiding like the plague

Last chance

Interesting. In what part of my post did I claim any killing was good?

You know that was not my point at all.

I am talking about the greater need should outweigh the need of the few.

If not, then we better change our whole perception here.

Like for example...

So what is your point? "The greater need should outweigh the need of the few..."? That is the utilitarian principle. How does utilitarianism figure into this, or are you just trying to impress? You don't explain, but rather go right to an example.

The utilitarian formula--so popular with Bentham, the Mills, and Fabian Socialism in mid-19th century England--would appear to augur against war. You treat mankind much kinder by handing out chocolates than killing babies. Is that not doing more good for more people?

Your other examples go right back to, which side to you root for? You like Israel and hate Islam. In today's iteration, you dislike ISIS...yesterday it was al Queda...day before, it was the Taliban. Who will it be next? Choosing one side or the other in a battle is not answering the question: why choose war in the first place? War just seems to be a bad habit with you.

So, I go back to my original question: why are you so pro-war? If you can relate it to the utilitarian principle, do so. So far, it appears you have brought up utilitarianism to sound erudite...but you go nowhere with it.

by Guest Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:There is many reasons people will engage in violence against each other, all irrelevant to the point I am trying to make, which you keep avoiding like the plague

Last chance

Interesting. In what part of my post did I claim any killing was good?

You know that was not my point at all.

I am talking about the greater need should outweigh the need of the few.

If not, then we better change our whole perception here.

Like for example...

So what is your point? "The greater need should outweigh the need of the few..."? How does utilitarianism figure into this, or are you just trying to impress? You don't explain, but rather go right to an example.

So you again avoided answering my question and then further misdirect

I knew you would avoid, as it places many of your views as flawed, failing to understand humans.

That is your first failing on such a debate.

Now the debate os over, as you refused to answer one simple question, after being asked multiple times.

Mainly as I knew you would avoid answering

Enjoy

by Original Quill Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:46 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

So what is your point? "The greater need should outweigh the need of the few..."? How does utilitarianism figure into this, or are you just trying to impress? You don't explain, but rather go right to an example.

So you again avoided answering my question and then further misdirect

I knew you would avoid, as it places many of your views as flawed, failing to understand humans.

That is your first failing on such a debate.

Now the debate os over, as you refused to answer one simple question, after being asked multiple times.

Mainly as I knew you would avoid answering

Enjoy

Very typical of narcissists...accuse the other of exactly what you are doing. Do the mirror-image of what you anticipate, before he does it. Trump does this all the time. Trump was predicting that the election was "rigged", before he had the Russians rig it. Trump lies and then accuses the fake news of inventing the lie that he lied. Anything to avoid a linear discussion.

The problem is, like Trump, these tactics are not very productive. Just as Trump can't describe, let alone accomplish his legislative agenda, you can't explain your raising of the utilitarian principle. So, you were just trying to impress us.

OK, let's do a little less impressing, and a little more work. Give us one simple reason why you think killing people in a conflict with ISIS, will finally put to rest all wars, for all time?

If not, admit you have no endgame. And if you have no endgame, admit that you believe mankind is destined for perpetual war. You see...you can't bluff your way through serious stuff. Your ethos--look good, no matter what--does not get to the answers. And when you are advocating war, you'd better have answers.

by Guest Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:48 pm

So far in this debate, you have used views on me and failed to answer my questions.

That again is poor misdirection

Showing how emotive you are, knowing full well you are afraid to answer my question

I will post it one last time for you

Case in point. Quill uses an emotive argument never understanding how people ever suffer of what they might actually want. Or even how such a hate is indoctrinated within people. He goes off what makes most people angry over. Harm to babies. Its his failing poor core argument against armed conflict. Neglecting that such arguments see far more babies dying, by doing nothing.

In WW2 Jews who had risked their lives to pass on intelligence of the holocaust to the Allies. Where they called for the allies to bomb Auschwitz. Where they would rather their own lives were sacrificed in order that no others would suffer at this concentration camp and in the hope some, if not many would have been saved.

Why do you think that is Quill?

by Original Quill Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:51 pm

Didge wrote:So far in this debate, you have used views on me and failed to answer my questions.

That again is poor misdirection

Showing how emotive you are, knowing full well you are afraid to answer my question

I will post it one last time for you

Case in point. Quill uses an emotive argument never understanding how people ever suffer of what they might actually want. Or even how such a hate is indoctrinated within people. He goes off what makes most people angry over. Harm to babies. Its his failing poor core argument against armed conflict. Neglecting that such arguments see far more babies dying, by doing nothing.

In WW2 Jews who had risked their lives to pass on intelligence of the holocaust to the Allies. Where they called for the allies to bomb Auschwitz. Where they would rather their own lives were sacrificed in order that no others would suffer at this concentration camp and in the hope some, if not many would have been saved.

Why do you think that is Quill?

What a fookin' loser. If you're going to waste our time like this, go flounce again...and stay this time. You're not doing any good here.

by Guest Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:53 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:So far in this debate, you have used views on me and failed to answer my questions.

That again is poor misdirection

Showing how emotive you are, knowing full well you are afraid to answer my question

I will post it one last time for you

Case in point. Quill uses an emotive argument never understanding how people ever suffer of what they might actually want. Or even how such a hate is indoctrinated within people. He goes off what makes most people angry over. Harm to babies. Its his failing poor core argument against armed conflict. Neglecting that such arguments see far more babies dying, by doing nothing.

In WW2 Jews who had risked their lives to pass on intelligence of the holocaust to the Allies. Where they called for the allies to bomb Auschwitz. Where they would rather their own lives were sacrificed in order that no others would suffer at this concentration camp and in the hope some, if not many would have been saved.

Why do you think that is Quill?

What a fookin' loser. If you're going to waste our time like this, go flounce again...and stay this time. You're not doing any good here.

How emotive again.

So now you want me to leave, because you fear answering a point made in my very first post here. Which you have continued to not attempt to answer?

I know why you cannot answer, as it will shatter your illusions.

by Original Quill Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:11 pm

So many dimensions to this story. Senator John McCain, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has threatened to subpoena the Department of Defense over why these soldiers were there. He's already got the Constitution on his side. But he now needs subpoenas? Obviously, the Republican Congress is beginning to declare war on the Republican White House.

What they have found out at this point is that Trump's anti-Muslim policies, world wide, are beginning to backfire on him. His travel ban has already prompted some nations to abandon the US in battle.

Trump is learning that warfare requires partners, and partners require trust...so much for diplomacy be damned, man the torpedoes. This is a guy who can't deliver drinking water to Puerto Rico. Add to this that his ethics create and inspire enemies, and you realize he is perhaps the worst leader since Nero.

Also interesting: someone has mapped out his weeks and days, and found that his most abrupt tweets occur at 6:30 am Saturday morning. Perhaps a little too much cocaine the night before?

by 'Wolfie Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:12 am

Not to worry...

Donnie the Dumpster still has his 4 or 5 Floptard supporters on here..

Along with his more diehard KKK, Evangelical/"born again" and 'Tea Party' grassroots supporters.

by Tommy Monk Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:54 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:MAP: The U.S. military currently has troops in these African countries ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/05/21/map-the-u-s-currently-has-troops-in-these-african-countries/
21 May 2014 ... The U.S. Air Force set up a drone base in Niamey, Niger, in 2013. The White House says it has around 100 military personnel in the country

by Original Quill Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:39 am

Tommy Monk wrote:MAP: The U.S. military currently has troops in these African countries ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/05/21/map-the-u-s-currently-has-troops-in-these-african-countries/
21 May 2014 ... The U.S. Air Force set up a drone base in Niamey, Niger, in 2013. The White House says it has around 100 military personnel in the country

Correct. The nation of Chad was to have protected the US personnel who were building the base. Only, Trump put Chad on the Muslim ban list. In response, the Chad military simply went home. Thus, the attack by ISIS on US troops, with no protection.

Such is the way it is when you have a crazy president who knows not what he is doing.

by Guest Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:36 am

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:MAP: The U.S. military currently has troops in these African countries ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/05/21/map-the-u-s-currently-has-troops-in-these-african-countries/
21 May 2014 ... The U.S. Air Force set up a drone base in Niamey, Niger, in 2013. The White House says it has around 100 military personnel in the country

Correct. The nation of Chad was to have protected the US personnel who were building the base. Only, Trump put Chad on the Muslim ban list. In response, the Chad military simply went home. Thus, the attack by ISIS on US troops, with no protection.

Such is the way it is when you have a crazy president who knows not what he is doing.

Always America first with you isn't it??

First to blame that is

You're taking shit, Muslims murder people, its what they do, whether on a ban list or not, Muslim murder people.

End of story

by Original Quill Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:17 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Correct. The nation of Chad was to have protected the US personnel who were building the base. Only, Trump put Chad on the Muslim ban list. In response, the Chad military simply went home. Thus, the attack by ISIS on US troops, with no protection.

Such is the way it is when you have a crazy president who knows not what he is doing.

Always America first with you isn't it??

First to blame that is

The truth often hurts, Russ. It's the reason why the alt-right has invented such things as 'alternate-facts' and 'fake news'--things that help ignorant people to escape the truth. They (the alt-right) are the illness, and they would rather you not cure yourself of the disease they are inflicting upon you.

For, in the pain of truth, there lies the key to curing what ails you. That is why we think of truth as 'good'...even thought it might hurt. The pain of a broken leg teaches you not to walk, at least temporarily; the pain of truth teaches you seek help until you are cured.

What are we doing in Africa? Why was the black man found miles away from the other three? Why was his widow not permitted to see his body? Why did Trump treat the nation of Chad with hostility? Why were the Chad troops, who were supposed to protect the American contingent, gone missing? Why does everybody end up hating Trump?

by Guest Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:41 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Always America first with you isn't it??

First to blame that is

The truth often hurts, Russ. It's the reason why the alt-right has invented such things as 'alternate-facts' and 'fake news'--things that help ignorant people to escape the truth. They (the alt-right) are the illness, and they would rather you not cure yourself of the disease they are inflicting upon you.

For, in the pain of truth, there lies the key to curing what ails you. That is why we think of truth as 'good'...even thought it might hurt. The pain of a broken leg teaches you not to walk, at least temporarily; the pain of truth teaches you seek help until you are cured.

What are we doing in Africa? Why was the black man found miles away from the other three? Why was his widow not permitted to see his body? Why did Trump treat the nation of Chad with hostility? Why were the Chad troops, who were supposed to protect the American contingent, gone missing? Why does everybody end up hating Trump?

You sound like a lunatic tin hat conspiracy theorist Quill.

Muslims hate everyone they don't need an excuse to kill, any American abroad (or at home) will be a target for a Muslim that can pull the kill off, they don't need a reason, being an infidel is reason enough

Take a look at benghazi Quill, I know you flinch away everytime it gets mentioned but that happened under Obama was allowed to happen

by Original Quill Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:42 pm

SB wrote:You sound like a lunatic tin hat conspiracy theorist Quill.

Muslims hate everyone they don't need an excuse to kill, any American abroad (or at home) will be a target for a Muslim that can pull the kill off, they don't need a reason, being an infidel is reason enough

Take a look at benghazi Quill, I know you flinch away everytime it gets mentioned but that happened under Obama was allowed to happen

In case it escaped your notice, we were at war at the time of Benghazi. A war that we started. A war that we started under false pretenses. What happened in Benghazi, happened all over the Middle East, sometimes ours, sometimes theirs...under the false pretenses of the Iraq war.

Who cares what Muslims want in their own country? They're sure not bringing their pickup truck war to our shores. Let 'em be, FCS.

by Guest Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:
SB wrote:You sound like a lunatic tin hat conspiracy theorist Quill.

Muslims hate everyone they don't need an excuse to kill, any American abroad (or at home) will be a target for a Muslim that can pull the kill off, they don't need a reason, being an infidel is reason enough

Take a look at benghazi Quill, I know you flinch away everytime it gets mentioned but that happened under Obama was allowed to happen

In case it escaped your notice, we were at war at the time of Benghazi. A war that we started. A war that we started under false pretenses. What happened in Benghazi, happened all over the Middle East, sometimes ours, sometimes theirs...under the false pretenses of the Iraq war.

Who cares what Muslims want in their own country? They're sure not bringing their pickup truck war to our shores. Let 'em be, FCS.

Eh?

How did we start a civil war?

So the Arab spring had nothing to do with it?

by Original Quill Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:11 pm

Didge wrote:Eh?

How did we start a civil war?

So the Arab spring had nothing to do with it?

Who says it was a "civil" war? They didn't attack their own civilians. They attack a US CIA compound at Benghazi. Arab spring may have been prompted by the fall of Saddam, but that was a parallel, different conflict.

Benghazi was an attack as a part of a war that Republicans started in Iraq...under false pretenses. Wars have a tendency to spill over into other regions, as we learned when the Japanese took on the whole Pacific Ocean and everybody in the environs. If Benghazi didn't happen in Iraq, I guess al Qaeda didn't get the memo.

Don't get me wrong. I condemn the war in Iraq, just as I condemn all these meaningless foreign adventures...Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Afghanistan...the parade never ends. But that's the bigger picture. Benghazi happened because we were already there, fighting a war. It was a battle that we happened to have lost. We won others.

by Guest Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:18 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Eh?

How did we start a civil war?

So the Arab spring had nothing to do with it?

Who says it was a "civil" war? They didn't attack their own civilians. They attack a US CIA compound at Benghazi. Arab spring may have been prompted by the fall of Saddam, but that was a parallel, different conflict.

Benghazi was an attack as a part of a war that Republicans started in Iraq...under false pretenses. Wars have a tendency to spill over into other regions, as we learned when the Japanese took on the whole Pacific Ocean and everybody in the environs. If Benghazi didn't happen in Iraq, I guess al Qaeda didn't get the memo.

Don't get me wrong. I condemn the war in Iraq, just as I condemn all these meaningless foreign adventures...Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Afghanistan...the parade never ends. But that's the bigger picture. Benghazi happened because we were already there, fighting a war. It was a battle that we happened to have lost. We won others.

OMG this really takes the biscuit of revisionist history.

They very much did attack their own citizens and under Gaddadfi he had executed and persecuted many citizens

Here something basic for you to understand

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)

Al Qaeda were attacking the west long before the Iraq war to topple Saddam.

So why were they attacking the US?

Because we were invited to participate in the liberation of Kuwait, backed by many Muslim majority countries?

Yes I know you are an appeaser, that wants to sit back in the comfort of your home, whilts countless people suffer. To you, its their problem. Thankfully people in history have not shared your views and have done something about this.

Whether the reasons to go to war in Iraq were poor and based off lies, it did achieve one thing. The downfall of a mass murderer. Then when they had this freedom, Saudi and Iran decided to engage in a proxy war within Iraq. Are you blaming the west for the freedom it gave the Iraq people, to then have this blown up in their faces, by two theocracies intent on their own ideology over that of the people of Iraq, by murdering hundreds of thousands of them through sectarian violence?

by Guest Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:00 pm

Original Quill wrote:
SB wrote:You sound like a lunatic tin hat conspiracy theorist Quill.

Muslims hate everyone they don't need an excuse to kill, any American abroad (or at home) will be a target for a Muslim that can pull the kill off, they don't need a reason, being an infidel is reason enough

Take a look at benghazi Quill, I know you flinch away everytime it gets mentioned but that happened under Obama was allowed to happen

In case it escaped your notice, we were at war at the time of Benghazi. A war that we started. A war that we started under false pretenses. What happened in Benghazi, happened all over the Middle East, sometimes ours, sometimes theirs...under the false pretenses of the Iraq war.

Who cares what Muslims want in their own country? They're sure not bringing their pickup truck war to our shores. Let 'em be, FCS.

Have you forgotten what started the war??

by Victorismyhero Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:23 pm

Unfortunately Quill is, in a way, correct. America IS little better than many of these 3rd world countries it attacks, for whatever reason. The expression sometimes heard is "monkeys with machine guns". By many definitions America (or at least a large %age of it) is indeed inflicted with a 3rd world mentality, even Quills beloved pacific states have an absurd death rate from firearms etc, face it they LIKE killing people...it gives em a woody. So we have what is effectively the worlds richest 3rd world country, unfortunately having the biggest bombs and the most ammo....

I beleive what Quill is saying is merely a stronger application of MY philosophy...NOT MY TRIBE.....

by Guest Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:28 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Unfortunately Quill is, in a way, correct. America IS little better than many of these 3rd world countries it attacks, for whatever reason. The expression sometimes heard is "monkeys with machine guns". By many definitions America (or at least a large %age of it) is indeed inflicted with a 3rd world mentality, even Quills beloved pacific states have an absurd death rate from firearms etc, face it they LIKE killing people...it gives em a woody. So we have what is effectively the worlds richest 3rd world country, unfortunately having the biggest bombs and the most ammo....

I beleive what Quill is saying is merely a stronger application of MY philosophy...NOT MY TRIBE.....

Is that no better than the hunter that tries to keep balance and others from harm?
So does it really attack for no reason or a perceived threat?
Is not a hunters thinking based the exact same?

Then what to ask is what is my tribe?

Any child born here?
Who becomes part of that tribe?
Some form of initiation?

Yes the world has many wrongs. Do we speak affter this wrongs, or try to correct those wrongs for the better.
As a hunter what would you do, sit back and allow the imbalance?

Would you fuck

by Victorismyhero Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:44 pm

no comparison didge, none at all

as a hunter I deal with unthinking nature, which has only inbuilt ability to balance itself, and with which balance WE interfere.

mankind has the ability to think and often is wrong thinking and selfish.

if my "patch" has an imbalance (say too many crows..predators) then I have to act as the apex predator and restore the balance, since OUR acivities have disrupted natures ability to deal with it.

However If a Sunni blows the shit out of some Shias or vice versa, or some palestinian does likewise to some israelis or vice versa....pfft...not my circus, not my monkeys WTF! Another war? In Africa? 2190311264

As long as they leave ME and mine out of it they can blow themselves to shitdom and back.

by Guest Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:51 pm

Lord Foul wrote:no comparison didge, none at all

as a hunter I deal with unthinking nature, which has only inbuilt ability to balance itself, and with which balance WE interfere.

mankind has the ability to think and often is wrong thinking and selfish.

if my "patch" has an imbalance (say too many crows..predators) then I have to act as the apex predator and restore the balance, since OUR acivities have disrupted natures ability to deal with it.

However If a Sunni blows the shit out of some Shias or vice versa, or some palestinian does likewise to some israelis or vice versa....pfft...not my circus, not my monkeys

As long as they leave ME and mine out of it they can blow themselves to shitdom and back.

Unthinking nature?

Who made you that the judge of that?

It means your thinking is as subjective as the rest does it not?

I agree that humanity, is and has become selfish, but that has no relevance on where you claim a standard on tribes.

What you then claim, is inclusiveness. Its a form of apartheid. Based on on who is included

You even admit that you will act as apex predator. Sadly I think the US has gone about this the wrong way. Its tried to do this for good and ended up doing so badly.

When you say that something happens elsewhere and its not your buisness.

Yes it is. It may not directly effect you now, but it may well effect others you leave behind

The future is peace and to say its not my problem, is born from a view to only think of yourself.;

by Victorismyhero Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:06 pm

Meh...I lived through the cold war period, when there was the general fear that at any moment we could all go boooooom....

that some negative act"could" happen is not a "casus belli"...

by Guest Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:08 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Meh...I lived through the cold war period, when there was the general fear that at any moment we could all go boooooom....

that some negative act"could" happen is not a "casus belli"...

Agreed, but is your conception on actual real threats based on that>>??

by Guest Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:10 pm

Night Victor

All the best, have an early start

by Original Quill Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:10 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

In case it escaped your notice, we were at war at the time of Benghazi. A war that we started. A war that we started under false pretenses. What happened in Benghazi, happened all over the Middle East, sometimes ours, sometimes theirs...under the false pretenses of the Iraq war.

Who cares what Muslims want in their own country? They're sure not bringing their pickup truck war to our shores. Let 'em be, FCS.

Have you forgotten what started the war??

Not at all...it was a lie told by the Neo-Con Republicans of the Bush administration, that Iraq had WMD's. I watched Powell deliver the "evidence" to the UN Assembly on February 5, 2003, in the famous "Diplomacy has Failed" speech...all lies, guesses and dreams. The 2003 invasion of Iraq began a few days later.

When the US got to Iraq, they searched, and searched, and searched, and searched...all to no avail. No WMD's. Yes Russo, they had lied.

Then the US soldiers started raping young girls, kidnapping, torturing, murdering, and they built their concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay to hold people, without charges or due process of law. It was the end of American justice and the sanctity of the Constitution.

Of course I remember. It was the year the US turned into a Nazi state...which led directly to Donald Trump, a resident mad-man. It was the year of the celebration of lies...which led directly to the alt-right, and 'alternate facts' as a political habit.

How could anyone forget the end of the great United States?

by Guest Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:18 am

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Have you forgotten what started the war??

Not at all...it was a lie told by the Neo-Con Republicans of the Bush administration, that Iraq had WMD's. I watched Powell deliver the "evidence" to the UN Assembly...all lies, guesses and dreams.

When the US got there, they searched, and searched, and searched, and searched...all to no avail. No WMD's. They had lied.

Then the US soldiers started raping young girls, kidnapping, torturing, murdering, and they built their concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay to hold people, without charges or due process of law. It was the end of American justice.

Of course I remember. It was the year the US turned into a Nazi state...which led directly to Donald Trump, a resident mad-man. It was the year of the celebration of lies...which led directly to the alt-right, and lies as a political habit. How could anyone forget the end of the great United States?

So you think 9/11 was because of the invasion of Iraq which came 2 years later 9/11.

Chronology not your forte I take it?? You're pretty good at being a drama queen though

LOL

by Original Quill Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:34 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Not at all...it was a lie told by the Neo-Con Republicans of the Bush administration, that Iraq had WMD's. I watched Powell deliver the "evidence" to the UN Assembly...all lies, guesses and dreams.

When the US got there, they searched, and searched, and searched, and searched...all to no avail. No WMD's. They had lied.

Then the US soldiers started raping young girls, kidnapping, torturing, murdering, and they built their concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay to hold people, without charges or due process of law. It was the end of American justice.

Of course I remember. It was the year the US turned into a Nazi state...which led directly to Donald Trump, a resident mad-man. It was the year of the celebration of lies...which led directly to the alt-right, and lies as a political habit. How could anyone forget the end of the great United States?

So you think 9/11 was because of the invasion of Iraq which came 2 years later 9/11.

Chronology not your forte I take it?? You're pretty good at being a drama queen though

LOL

Ahem...9-11 occurred a year-and-a-half earlier, on September 11, 2001, dum-dum. The Iraq War had nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11, which was executed by 19 men from Hanover, Germany, under orders from Usama bin Laden, who was harbored by the Taliban, in the mountains of Afghanistan. I would be embarrassed if I were you...you're not only bad at chronology, but geography as well.

The US made up the lie that Iraq had WMD's because the US coveted the oil under the Iraqi soil.

by Guest Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:42 am

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

So you think 9/11 was because of the invasion of Iraq which came 2 years later 9/11.

Chronology not your forte I take it?? You're pretty good at being a drama queen though

LOL

Ahem...9-11 occurred a year-and-a-half earlier, on September 11, 2001, dum-dum. The Iraq War had nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11, which was executed by 19 men from Hanover, Germany, under orders from Usama bin Laden, who was harbored by the Taliban in the mountains of Afghanistan. I would be embarrassed if I were you.

The US made up the lie that Iraq had WMD's because the US coveted the oil under the Iraqi soil.

Yeah but you blamed the Chad situation and benghazi on the fact that we are at war with the Muslims.

So what started the war?? The answer is 9/11

What caused 9/11??

Islamic jihad

See??

Muslims don't need an excuse to murder and start wars, what happend in Chad wasn't because of trumps ban, it happened because Muslims are savage barbarians

by Original Quill Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:06 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Ahem...9-11 occurred a year-and-a-half earlier, on September 11, 2001, dum-dum. The Iraq War had nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11, which was executed by 19 men from Hanover, Germany, under orders from Usama bin Laden, who was harbored by the Taliban in the mountains of Afghanistan. I would be embarrassed if I were you.

The US made up the lie that Iraq had WMD's because the US coveted the oil under the Iraqi soil.

Yeah but you blamed the Chad situation and benghazi on the fact that we are at war with the Muslims.

So what started the war?? The answer is 9/11

What caused 9/11??

Islamic jihad

See??

Muslims don't need an excuse to murder and start wars, what happend in Chad wasn't because of trumps ban, it happened because Muslims are savage barbarians

You still jerking off? The Benghazi attack in 2012 was a part of the Iraq War, which was nearly 10-years old at that time. The Iraq War was started by Neo-Con lies (about WMD's), told by the Republican Bush administration in 2002-03.

What exactly is the "Chad situation" to which you refer? Chad did not figure into the Iraq War. They are two different subjects. Chad has heretofore been friendly to the US. I did not blame any "Chad situation" on the Iraq War; and to my knowledge the only declared war we have ever had involving Muslims, is the Iraq War (both I and II).

It is thus that I question why we are in Central Africa. Congress has declared no war in the region. We have no business in the region. The precious little that has been leaked by the DOD, informs us that the US was building a base there (why??), and Chad was supposed to be protecting the US troops doing the building. Chad withdrew it's support because Trump, in his infinite stupidity, declared Chad to be a 'Muslim ban' country.

The only reference to Benghazi was by you, in making some oblique and vague argument that Muslims are generally troublesome:

SB wrote:Take a look at benghazi Quill, I know you flinch away everytime it gets mentioned but that happened under Obama was allowed to happen

It was a passing remark. It had no point. It appears you only mentioned it because you thought it would make me uncomfortable ("I know you flinch..."). To the contrary, I dismissed it as a part of a different subject, of no relevance to the subject matter here. It was not persuasive in any argument or example that you raised. As I say, it scored no point.

by Guest Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:28 am

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Yeah but you blamed the Chad situation and benghazi on the fact that we are at war with the Muslims.

So what started the war?? The answer is 9/11

What caused 9/11??

Islamic jihad

See??

Muslims don't need an excuse to murder and start wars, what happend in Chad wasn't because of trumps ban, it happened because Muslims are savage barbarians

You still jerking off? The Benghazi attack in 2012 was a part of the Iraq War, which was nearly 10-years old at that time. The Iraq War was started by Neo-Con lies (about WMD's), told by the Republican Bush administration in 2002-03.

What exactly is the "Chad situation" to which you refer? Chad did not figure into the Iraq War. Chad has heretofore been friendly to the US. I did not blame any "Chad situation" on the Iraq War; and to my knowledge the only declared war we have ever had involving Muslims, is the Iraq War (both I and II).

It is thus that I question why we are in Central Africa. Congress has declared no war in the region. We have no business in the region. The precious little that has been leaked by the DOD, informs us that the US was building a base there (why??), and Chad was supposed to be protecting the US troops doing the building. Chad withdrew it's support because Trump, in his infinite stupidity, declared Chad to be a 'Muslim ban' country.

The only reference to Benghazi was as a comparison used by didge, in making some argument of his. It was a passing remark.

You're Missing the point again

You said blah blah blah that soldier died because Chad got put in trumps travel ban.

You're applying cause and effect rather spuriously

The idea being that trump caused the effect of dead us soldiers by banning Chad and had he not banned Chad then the soldiers would have been protected.

That is of course nonsense, highlighted by benghazi, benghazi wasn't a retaliation for something Obama did, it just happend and was allowed to happen as target of opportunity,because that's what Muslim barbarians do.

Your response was "it happend because of the war"

My response was "what started the war"

Your response was "the invasion of Iraq"

My response was "what about 9/11"

Your response was...........................

by Original Quill Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:53 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You still jerking off? The Benghazi attack in 2012 was a part of the Iraq War, which was nearly 10-years old at that time. The Iraq War was started by Neo-Con lies (about WMD's), told by the Republican Bush administration in 2002-03.

What exactly is the "Chad situation" to which you refer? Chad did not figure into the Iraq War. Chad has heretofore been friendly to the US. I did not blame any "Chad situation" on the Iraq War; and to my knowledge the only declared war we have ever had involving Muslims, is the Iraq War (both I and II).

It is thus that I question why we are in Central Africa. Congress has declared no war in the region. We have no business in the region. The precious little that has been leaked by the DOD, informs us that the US was building a base there (why??), and Chad was supposed to be protecting the US troops doing the building. Chad withdrew it's support because Trump, in his infinite stupidity, declared Chad to be a 'Muslim ban' country.

The only reference to Benghazi was as a comparison used by didge, in making some argument of his. It was a passing remark.

You're Missing the point again

You said blah blah blah that soldier died because Chad got put in trumps travel ban.

You're applying cause and effect rather spuriously

The idea being that trump caused the effect of dead us soldiers by banning Chad and had he not banned Chad then the soldiers would have been protected.

Yes, that is the line of argument being taken by American news outlets. It appears that Trump, in his race to be some sort of war hero, showed his ignorance by insulting a friendly nation, which then caused an alliance to fall apart.

SB wrote:That is of course nonsense, highlighted by benghazi, benghazi wasn't a retaliation for something Obama did, it just happend and was allowed to happen as target of opportunity,because that's what Muslim barbarians do.

Your response was "it happend because of the war"

My response was "what started the war"

Your response was "the invasion of Iraq"

My response was "what about 9/11"

Your response was...........................

Yes, you went off at this point. You must learn to concentrate. Benghazi has nothing to do with this story about four soldiers killed in Central Africa...Benghazi was a battle in another war, namely the Iraq War.

Even further removed is the incident known as 9/11. That incident had nothing to do with either the Iraq War, or this recent incident in Central Africa. It was not a cause for either.

Now forget about Iraq or 9/11, and concentrate on this story in Central Africa. It appears to be another gigantic blunder by a genuine amateur in the business...Donald Trump. He has ill-informed and inflexible ideas about how to conduct foreign affairs. He blows strategic operations in Yemen and Syria, yet he cannot deliver drinking water to Puerto Rico.

In his ill-informed enthusiasm to insult Muslims, he intersects this operation in Central Africa, in which the nation of Chad was protecting US units building something in Niger. By insulting Chad, a predominately Muslim nation, he caused the protection of the US troops to be withdrawn. As a consequence, four soldiers were killed.

That's how many dead now, attributable to Trump blunders?? Yemen, Korea, Shayrat Airfield, Syria, Puerto Rico...that's a pretty long list for just raw stupidity. Can we really afford this idiot as a president?

by Sponsored content