source? Just as a courtesy, of course. Also, you aren't (as far as I know) an enemy of the US, or in a country that is an enemy of the US. So no, you shouldn't be afraid

Eritrea is its own enemy.

I am disgusted when folk advocate killing innocent folk for "demoralisation", and less, by all this Islamphobia on Warlight.

We're not. We want to kill ISIS fighters and jihadists. They're not innocent in the least. People who are defending radical islamic terrorists by citing "American atrocities" are just giving them a free pass. Moral relativism doesn't work when you're trying to destroy a radical and apocalyptic terror group. You're just making them stronger. I'm a non-interventionist at heart but even I know its just plain irresponsible to ignore and minimize the radical threat Muslim extremism places on religious minorities in Muslim majority countries.

Don't recall where I read it, but you can not deny that American imperialism has killed far more than Islamic extremism, excluding or including sites where they overlap.

http://www.sott.net/article/273517-Study-US-regime-has-killed-20-30-million-people-since-World-War-Two

It's obviously loads.

source? Just as a courtesy, of course. Also, you aren't (as far as I know) an enemy of the US, or in a country that is an enemy of the US. So no, you shouldn't be afraid

By speaking out against America, I am a foe of America, but probably not one famous enough that they need to shut up. But I live in a country that is definitely a foe of America, though America just chooses to give offhand criticisms of it rather than attack it. Attacking Eritrea would not bring much good to America. Not worth it. But I might be moving to Afghanistan, what then? And before, I lived in Belarus and Russia (albeit in Russia before Maidan).

Eritrea is its own enemy.

Well, to be fair, Islamic extremisim is not too big a problem since Eritrea takes a 0-tolerance stance on that, and does what PE actually suggests, sometimes - killing families and innocent folk as "collective punishment".

We're not. We want to kill ISIS fighters and jihadists. They're not innocent in the least. People who are defending radical islamic terrorists by citing "American atrocities" are just giving them a free pass.

I was specifically refering to GeneralPE, who agreed with Trump's statement of that the terrorist's families and friends should be targetted and killed as part of total warfare. Bombing the Mashriq is one bad thing, but that is another, very much worse and awful, terrible thing.

Moral relativism doesn't work when you're trying to destroy a radical and apocalyptic terror group.

Are you just saying to fight fire with fire here? To stoop to the levels of the Mashriq, to fight with their fire?

People who are defending radical islamic terrorists by citing "American atrocities" are just giving them a free pass.

I'm far from defending them; I hate them, but I don't think American atrocities should be given a free pass.

You're just making them stronger.

How's that?

I'm a non-interventionist at heart but even I know its just plain irresponsible to ignore and minimize the radical threat Muslim extremism places on religious minorities in Muslim majority countries.

It'd be wonderful if America and friends never entered the Middle East again, just withdrew all embassies, so on. But that hasn't happened since the 1700s. And I am a noninterventionist, and I'd say a close patrol and security of the site is the best way to defeat the Mashriqar there, not "intervening". Ignoring the threat will do far better, than fighting the threat, giving the attention they need, and growing motivation for more.

I can't believe all this jingoism, and you call me growing Islamic extremism? You're the one who wants to invade Syria.

Trump's statement of that the terrorist's families and friends should be targetted and killed as part of total warfare.

Yeah I'm not for this at all. Never really was a proponent of total war theory. Plus it likely violates the Geneva Convention, Standards of Warfare, and the Just War Theory.

Are you just saying to fight fire with fire here? To stoop to the levels of the Mashriq, to fight with their fire?

What do you mean stoop? I want ISIS fighters dead. That's it. We don't need to use chemical weapons or slice women's heads off or kill children if that's what you mean.

but I don't think American atrocities should be given a free pass.

Agreed, but the primary existential threat that is a concern for all nations at the present moment is not to deal with past American atrocities, but to deal with the enemy at hand, which is ISIS and its affiliates.

It'd be wonderful if America and friends never entered the Middle East again, just withdrew all embassies, so on. But that hasn't happened since the 1700s. And I am a noninterventionist, and I'd say a close patrol and security of the site is the best way to defeat the Mashriqar there, not "intervening". Ignoring the threat will do far better, than fighting the threat, giving the attention they need, and growing motivation for more

What's wrong with embassies? I agree almost completely though with the concept of unhooking American from the internal politics of the Middle East except where it concerns the defense of Israel. Nations have a right of sovereignty and its not the business of America to dictate their government, culture, rule of law, social structures, policies, religion, or international affairs. However, I don't see how ignoring the threat will "do far better" than fighting the threat. If you don't fight them you give them time to recruit, to make more money in illegal trades such as narcotics and sexual slavery, and to spread their philosophy of fear and evil across Iraq and Syria. Iraq and Syria cannot defeat ISIS alone.

You're the one who wants to invade Syria.

Quote me where I said that. America invading Syria will inflame the situation and cause more unnecessary (but somewhat justified) hatred against us. ISIS needs to be destroyed by Muslim forces supported by American and Russian air power. This will give Islamic states in the Gulf a real chance to "prove" that they're against radical Islamic terrorism and to take control over their own region's political state. I'm a non-interventionist, and their are policies that will allow us to destroy ISIS without US or European troops.

Well, I read something of what people posted, but really, it seems those big posts come faster then I can read 'em. Btw, just watched the dem debate, people here should watch debates too. Even if you're against the ideas, it's always good to learn the other side of the history.

Now, a few answers.

Someone said or implied I was defending Isis when I said the west radicalized Islam. And that's not true. I am for a war against Isis and the hardway to deal with it. But the truth is, the west shouldn't be implied that far onto it. There should be a muslim coalition on the ground fighting Isis with western support. I don't believe further implication by the occident would help, and in fact, it would probably do more damage then anything.


About the radicalisation of Islam, I didn't said there was no muslim radicals a few centuries ago, yea there was. But mostly we had old salafist ideas that weren't widespread and that no one cared about, just like the old christian radicalism. Now, the problem started with colonization and the opressive colonial regimes, and it got worse with time. During the invasion of afghanistan, the US trained and supported local groups to fight the USSR. Ammoung them the talibans and the Al-Qaeda of Osama Bin Laden. Yea, that's right. The US created the Al-Qaeda. So don't blame the Quran for the 9/11, blame yourself for it. Because the US invaded the middle east countless times, founded dictatorships in the region and always prefered to bomb first and ask questions later.


Imagine that the world was a bit different, and imagine that Saudi Arabia was the strongest nation in the world for a second. Imagine now that muslim countries colonized your country, stole your ressources and that one day you get independent. Just for a few years later Saudi Arabia create a puppet state in America, bomb your houses to contain any rebels and keep taking ressources from your nation. Would you be pissed off at them? Would you for a second believe that it's fair to fight against Saudi Arabian imperialism? Even by joining christian radical groups?


It's really easier to understand someone if you manage to put yourself under their skin...

And now, I'm gonna post a few trump memes, cause someone said it would be a good idea to do it ^^.

What do you mean stoop? I want ISIS fighters dead. That's it. We don't need to use chemical weapons or slice women's heads off or kill children if that's what you mean.

Mixed myself up, but fighting fire with fire in general is not a good policy, this included.

Agreed, but the primary existential threat that is a concern for all nations at the present moment is not to deal with past American atrocities, but to deal with the enemy at hand, which is ISIS and its affiliates.

The biggest military threat today seems to be America, who first sponsored and armed the Mashriq in the first site - McCain even posed for a picture with them, at one point. And still likely they're still being sponsored by America through proxies in the Gulf Countries and Turkey. But America is undefeatable, and attacking the Mashriq will bring only worse, and more suffering to the folk.

What's wrong with embassies? I agree almost completely though with the concept of unhooking American from the internal politics of the Middle East except where it concerns the defense of Israel.

Just not needed, why should America, a "democratic" country support all these dictatorships and absolute kingdoms? America is supposed to discourage it, if anything. And embassies is part of American presence. No American presence = no grounds to target America for any rebels.

defense of Israel

defence...that's arguing for another day.

However, I don't see how ignoring the threat will "do far better" than fighting the threat. If you don't fight them you give them time to recruit, to make more money in illegal trades such as narcotics and sexual slavery, and to spread their philosophy of fear and evil across Iraq and Syria.

Mashriq came from wrecking Iraq hard, and giving them weapons and money. Now, you want to solve this problem by wrecking the Mashriq hard, and giving other rebels weapons and money?

Iraq and Syria cannot defeat ISIS alone.

Do you think the Mashriq will at all get far in Arabia, Turkey, or Iran? Lebanon is a maybe, but Iran and Israel would probably intervene there (an odd combination, but both have interests in Lebanon).

You're the one who wants to invade Syria.

Quote me where I said that.

I'm a non-interventionist at heart but even I know its just plain irresponsible to ignore and minimize the radical threat Muslim extremism places on religious minorities in Muslim majority countries.

Though you didn't outright say it, you implified it - "I'm a non-interventionist at heart, but current situation is not enough."

ISIS needs to be destroyed by Muslim forces supported by American and Russian air power.

Islam is not one stick. Ask Cardwell to explain to you the tenets of Shia Islam. Most Muslim theologist refuse to accept the Mashriqar as Muslims, and in reverse. So what good is it going to do for non-Salafi, not even necessarily Sunni moderate Muslims going to do against it? America and Russia need to get out, too, they're just making the situation worse (though I find it ironic that the day Russia officially declared war, most the far-west and American media immediately went on alert, talking about how Russia wants to destabilise the site. Of course, America wants to just restore things, but then evil Russia wants to take over the world.

This will give Islamic states in the Gulf a real chance to "prove" that they're against radical Islamic terrorism and to take control over their own region's political state.

They're already sending arms and help, they just don't really want to get in the war too much, especially since many are already busy in Yemen.

I'm a non-interventionist, and their are policies that will allow us to destroy ISIS without US or European troops.

That is intervening, if American or Russian aeroplanes are there. Or worse, if robots will be there, then America and Russia will look really scary, more hate towards them, cycle repeats.

A few true facts now!

nah m8 FOX hates Trump

That last image is not the real hat.

It's probably a registered trademark already, so any "make america great again hat", is the original one. But it's not that important, got one original one by your standarts:

The leader of UKIP in Scotland is openly gay. His name is David Coburn.

Nigel Farage has just teamed up with the most famous socialist in Britain: George Galloway.


Bring back Bush, I say. More war! I need to sell my guns!!

What do you mean that hat is not produced by one of Trump's companies?

Belgian stop drinking nobody understands u