President Obama: "randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris"

[GMM]

Who's he talking about? Well, the Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists who waged violent jihad in the name of Mohammed of course. But he didn't use the words "Islamic", "Muslim", "jihad", or anything like that. No, its his sacred duty as a leftist to defend the good name of Islam at all times.

"It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris," Obama said. "It is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that-the same way a big city mayor's got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive."

Yeah, its not like they murdered four Jews in a kosher supermarket on purpose. It was just some random shooting.

Why should Anericans be concerned about it if its random?

Why should Americans be concerned about crime in Paris?

Does a big city mayor cut the crime rate by refusing to identify the criminals or by calling crime "random unfortunate behavior"?

Obama Downplays Terror

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by GMM:
Who's he talking about? Well, the Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists who waged violent jihad in the name of Mohammed of course. But he didn't use the words "Islamic", "Muslim", "jihad", or anything like that. No, its his sacred duty as a leftist to defend the good name of Islam at all times.

"It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris," Obama said. "It is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that-the same way a big city mayor's got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive."

JMO, I think you're reaching. Describing the Muslims who took part in Paris as "violent, vicious zealots" is accurate. He could've described them as "male, French born, Muslim, violent, vicious zealots of medium height and medium build", but he didn't.

The cherry-picked quote leaves out the part where he said, "We devote enormous resources to dealing with that. It is right..."

 

[db]

Wow. It doesn't take much to set the haters off.

I think it was pretty clear what the president was saying.

But go ahead, turn this into WW III against Islam if you want. Bankrupt the U.S. with trillions in costs and never win the war, because there are 1.5 billion of them and new radicals will rise to replace the dead ones. This is the exact scenario Osama bin Laden wanted. He said so.

Problem for you is, that's not what America elected Obama to do. And he knows it.

 

[GMM]

But go ahead, turn this into WW III against Islam if you want. Bankrupt
the U.S. with trillions in costs and never win the war, because there
are 1.5 billion of them and new radicals will rise to replace the dead
ones.

It'd be a lot cheaper to stop importing them and start calling them out for their crimes.

This is the exact scenario Osama bin Laden wanted.

Yeah, and he wanted the US out of the Middle East. With Obama, he's getting that.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by GMM:

Yeah, and he wanted the US out of the Middle East. With Obama, he's getting that.

And we shouldn't be? How many tours have you put in over there?

 

[GMM]

None. What's that got to do with it?

db made the hysterical claim that I want "WW III" and that OBL got what he wanted because we're fighting them. As if OBL should somehow dictate our policies, i.e. we have to do the opposite of what he wanted. So, I countered with a fact that OBL is getting what he wanted because of our exiting the ME. According to db's logic we should never leave the ME because "that's the exact scenario Osama bin Laden wanted". We should also never fight them because "that's the exact scenario Osama bin Laden wanted".

And we shouldn't be?

Tell us how it would make us safer if we completely got out of the ME.



This post was edited on 2/9 9:57 PM by GMM

 

[BoilerMadness]

Neville Chamberlin, is that you?

Originally posted by db:
Wow. It doesn't take much to set the haters off.

I think it was pretty clear what the president was saying.

But go ahead, turn this into WW III against Islam if you want. Bankrupt the U.S. with trillions in costs and never win the war, because there are 1.5 billion of them and new radicals will rise to replace the dead ones. This is the exact scenario Osama bin Laden wanted. He said so.

Problem for you is, that's not what America elected Obama to do. And he knows it.

Yup, burying your head in the sand is the accepted solution to the problem

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I am not sure it makes us any safer if we are. It might do the opposite.

It matters because it is easy to send folks to war when you don't have skin in the game.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by GMM:
Who's he talking about? Well, the Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists who waged violent jihad in the name of Mohammed of course. But he didn't use the words "Islamic", "Muslim", "jihad", or anything like that. No, its his sacred duty as a leftist to defend the good name of Islam at all times.

"It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris," Obama said. "It is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that-the same way a big city mayor's got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive."

JMO, I think you're reaching. Describing the Muslims who took part in Paris as "violent, vicious zealots" is accurate. He could've described them as "male, French born, Muslim, violent, vicious zealots of medium height and medium build", but he didn't.

The cherry-picked quote leaves out the part where he said, "We devote enormous resources to dealing with that. It is right..."

I think the point was that Obama has never uttered the words "Islamic Terrorists". You're not denigrating ALL Muslims by pointing out that our biggest problem in the ME is Islamic Terrorists.

 

[Purdue97]

Seven total. Not all of them were the 12-18 month tours.

Tough call with what to do with this issue. I think the last two Presidents have mishandled the situations pretty bad.

As for getting out of the ME, I think there has to be 4-5 strategically based units, approximately a Brigade with attachments in size, left in various parts of Afghanistan, through the ME, and in Africa as well. The units will fight when an ISIL or Boko Haram group starts up, with the host country's military, but mainly be involved in training government backed militaries. The US gets intel that a plot is in the works like they did in the fall, the guys move to take it out.

I know the President said he did not support this "whac-a-mole" approach, but I think it is the best option. It definitely beats sending hundreds of thousands of troops in to rebuild a country with limited success and beats the doing nothing or airstrikes approach.

 

[db]

Re: Neville Chamberlin, is that you?

Yeah because that's exactly analogous to the present situation.

Sheesh.

 

[db]

Here we have someone invoking the concept of "logic" when he has none to offer, and making up things the other guy is supposedly thinking.

I'll go slowly.

1. bin Laden wanted to bankrupt the US, paving the way for the Islamization of the world if you are the type to expect the worst. I think that would be a bad thing, at least for me.

2. bin Laden might have wanted the US out of the middle east. I think that might not be a bad thing. More importantly, the American electorate wanted the US out of the middle east, and said so.

GMM, this mystery connection that I want the US only to do the opposite of what bin Laden wants is your personal imaginary figment. I do salute your creativity, even if it only arose because you had no other argument.

The reason it is important to point out the strategic objectives of various Islamists is (obviously) so that we can think about our own strategic objectives instead of being purely reactionary, and so that we can be careful about playing into opponents' hands. Take ISIS, for example. You think the slickly produced horror show is only about intimidating the locals? You think it is only about recruiting Euro hooligans?

Personally it seems obvious to me that ISIS wants to inflame and drag the non-Islamic west into a ground war over there. They might even be happy to lose that war, if it takes a sufficient toll and advances their ideology and cause in the long run. But our president is exactly right that it's up to the moderate Sunnis to take down ISIS. I'm sure we will be giving them as much help as we can.

 

[GMM]

It matters because it is easy to send folks to war when you don't have skin in the game.

Yes, when the war is limited to somewhere else. The war is here and the war is there. Jihad is a global war against the infidels.

 

[GMM]

Re: Neville Chamberlin, is that you?

You criticize his analogy yet you accuse me of wanting "WW III".

 

[GMM]

GMM, this mystery connection that I want the US only to do the opposite of what bin Laden wants is your personal imaginary figment.

It also happens to align with what your post implied.

You think the slickly produced horror show is only about intimidating the locals? You think it is only about recruiting Euro hooligans?

Gee, I hope you're not "making up things the other guy is supposedly thinking".

No, in addition to intimidation and (worldwide) recruitment, what ISIS is doing is also about living up to the commandments of the Koran and the example of Mohammed.

BTW, how can such recruitment succeed? There's just no way Muslims in Europe or anywhere else would sign up for ISIS since they've been repeatedly taught in their mosques that Islam is a religion of peace and that groups like ISIS are, like, totally un-Islamic. Haven't they? Where would such Muslims get the idea that joining groups like ISIS (or Boko Haram, or Al Qaeda, or Hamas, or Hezballah, or Al Nusra, or Al Shabaab, or........) is a good idea?

Personally it seems obvious to me that ISIS wants to inflame......

Yes, they certainly do like to inflame.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by Purdue97:
Seven total. Not all of them were the 12-18 month tours.

Tough call with what to do with this issue. I think the last two Presidents have mishandled the situations pretty bad.

As for getting out of the ME, I think there has to be 4-5 strategically based units, approximately a Brigade with attachments in size, left in various parts of Afghanistan, through the ME, and in Africa as well. The units will fight when an ISIL or Boko Haram group starts up, with the host country's military, but mainly be involved in training government backed militaries. The US gets intel that a plot is in the works like they did in the fall, the guys move to take it out.

I know the President said he did not support this "whac-a-mole" approach, but I think it is the best option. It definitely beats sending hundreds of thousands of troops in to rebuild a country with limited success and beats the doing nothing or airstrikes approach.

Only four full deployments and part of a fifth for me. Also did some Japan/Korea/China time, but these are Navy deployments so 6-8 months each, including one where I split time between Bahrain and Kuwait with a whole slew of time patrolling Iraqi territorial waters. Certainly not the door-kicking that you were probably doing...

I'm not a big fan of leaving troops just about anywhere long term. Seems awfully British Empire to me. In the ME specifically, our specific strategic interest is starting to wane, but the rest of the world is very much dependent on them, specifically the Saudis, for oil.

Interesting point about having "trainers" embedded with other country's military and the intel advantages that come with that. Hadn't thought of that before.

I'm not sure I could put a finger on a strategy under this administration other than abdicating leadership in most foreign matters. Awfully utopian, but it's also difficult for me to see the continued benefit of a large US military presence in that part of the world.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by GMM:
It matters because it is easy to send folks to war when you don't have skin in the game.

Yes, when the war is limited to somewhere else. The war is here and the war is there. Jihad is a global war against the infidels.

Mmm hmmm. Got it. You're fighting the same war you soldier you.

Why aren't we fighting in Indonesia? It's the most populated Muslim country in the world!

 

[GMM]

Mmm hmmm. Got it. You're fighting the same war you soldier you.

Nice distortion.

Why aren't we fighting in Indonesia?

Gee, I don't know. Are the most violent threats coming from there?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by GMM:
Mmm hmmm. Got it. You're fighting the same war you soldier you.

Nice distortion.

Why aren't we fighting in Indonesia?

Gee, I don't know. Are the most violent threats coming from there?

Would the most violent threats to the US be coming from the Middle East if we weren't viewed by some as occupiers? There are plenty of Islamic terrorist groups in Indonesia and the PI. If it's truly "jihad and a global war", you should suit up and go.

I'm going to keep hammering home at this point that you haven't ever put a foot anywhere near the middle east as you want to continue sending people over there to fight this war against an ideology.

 

[GMM]

Would the most violent threats to the US be coming from the Middle East if we weren't viewed by some as occupiers?

There it is. We should orient our actions around the ignorant, bigoted, supremacist attitudes of mis-informed people who hate us. Then we'll be safe. Otherwise, its our fault if we get attacked becaus they (inaccurately) view us as "occupiers".

I'm going to keep hammering home at this point that you haven't ever put a foot anywhere near the middle east as you want to continue sending people over there........

Does this mentality of yours apply to you? What things are you not allowed to comment on because it won't directly involve you? Does any military effort that you support HAVE TO involve your participation?

Quite a silly standard you're enforcing.

.......to fight this war against an ideology.

So we should never fight against jihadists anywhere?

Does it have involve only the military? Or can we fight a cultural war against them? If so, can I please, please, please participate?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by GMM:
Would the most violent threats to the US be coming from the Middle East if we weren't viewed by some as occupiers?

There it is. We should orient our actions around the ignorant, bigoted, supremacist attitudes of mis-informed people who hate us. Then we'll be safe. Otherwise, its our fault if we get attacked becaus they (inaccurately) view us as "occupiers".

I'm going to keep hammering home at this point that you haven't ever put a foot anywhere near the middle east as you want to continue sending people over there........

Does this mentality of yours apply to you? What things are you not allowed to comment on because it won't directly involve you? Does any military effort that you support HAVE TO involve your participation?

Quite a silly standard you're enforcing.

.......to fight this war against an ideology.

So we should never fight against jihadists anywhere?

Does it have involve only the military? Or can we fight a cultural war against them? If so, can I please, please, please participate?

Answer the question? You obviously think attacks would still happen if we weren't occupiers. It wasn't a statement. It was a question. I don't know the answer to it. I THINK we'd still be attacked, but I wonder if we would be the primary target or if they'd focus more on Israel or someone else.

Generally speaking, I oppose things like the ACA, but not so much so considering it doesn't affect me. So yes, when you're talking about sending people away from their families to go into harm's way to carry out a war against an ideology and an ill-defined, ubiquitous enemy, I'm going to hold a different standard.

The fact that there are people's lives at stake as you push this "global jihad" War on Islam seems lost on you. I guess we're just meat for the grinder because we volunteered. Thanks, I'll remember that.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go see if I can find other ideas we should try to shoot and bomb. It might take me a little bit, so I might not get back to this thread... ever.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by BigE23:

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by GMM:
Who's he talking about? Well, the Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists who waged violent jihad in the name of Mohammed of course. But he didn't use the words "Islamic", "Muslim", "jihad", or anything like that. No, its his sacred duty as a leftist to defend the good name of Islam at all times.

"It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris," Obama said. "It is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that-the same way a big city mayor's got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive."

JMO, I think you're reaching. Describing the Muslims who took part in Paris as "violent, vicious zealots" is accurate. He could've described them as "male, French born, Muslim, violent, vicious zealots of medium height and medium build", but he didn't.

The cherry-picked quote leaves out the part where he said, "We devote enormous resources to dealing with that. It is right..."

... that Obama has never uttered the words "Islamic Terrorists".

Yeah, I am pretty sure this part is patently false. Otherwise I agree with your post, but if we're going to post every quote and every conservative blog about it, it seems kind of silly.

 

[GMM]

Answer the question? You obviously think attacks would still happen if
we weren't occupiers. It wasn't a statement. It was a question. I don't
know the answer to it. I THINK we'd still be attacked, but I wonder if
we would be the primary target or if they'd focus more on Israel or
someone else.

Since I've answered this question so many times on this board I'm surprised you don't already know. Yes, I'm certain we'd be attacked. Look at all the countries around the world that have been attacked by jihadists. How many have the same foreign policy we do? Almost none. Yes, the problem is with them (the jihadists), not us.

For some reason you wanted to turn this thread into an attack on me as if I'm calling for endless, total war against every square inch of the ME. Never called for that. But I suppose its easier for you to do that than acknowledge what Obama refuses to acknowledge: Islam is the problem. All over the world its adherents are at war with the infidels. The precious "moderates" that you so adore are seemingly incapable of stopping them.

Is military action the answer? Partially. How about we stop importing Muslims into Western societies. That'd make it harder for them to wage jihad against us. But IIRC you don't like that idea at all. Apparently you sorta think, maybe, that if we changed our foreign policy we'd be less threatened.

 

[Purdue97]

I think I am a bit influenced or it might be jaded from my experiences there. I think many in the ME are just not ready for a democracy yet, and really respect the strong man or big chief as we were often called.

The only way rebuilding a ME country would work IMO, is to have a deal like the US had/has with South korea. Not sure we really want to have that many soldiers in the ME for that long. Also, with the entire loyalties to tribe and religion first, just not sure rebuilding a country is and inserting a democracy is doable there this generation. JMO

However, the idea of the strong man and loyalties to religion are exactly why the USA needs a presence there. In reality, I would like it to be more NATO, or heaven forbid the UN ever do anything, just do not see it. Even though as you say the other developed countries in the world are more dependent upon them than us. While I agree the US does not need to be dependent on the ME or SA for oil as much anymore, I think letting these radical Islamic groups take over countries or large area of land in the ME(Iraq/Yemen) or in Africa is a dangerous scenario as well.

These groups want to destroy the infidels(Europe/America), support terror, and the more success they have, the more funding and recruits they get-because they are seen as the strong man. It is the entire keep and control them over there to prevent catastrophes here idea. Fully admit it is not fool proof, but I think it is better than giving these groups free unobstructed reign. That just reminds me to much of the Taliban with Afghanistan and Al Qaeda.

 

[Purdue85]

To be kind, Obama is an amateur playing with professionals.

He's a community organizer who has a bunch of theories and theoreticians advising him. None have really lived in the real world. They're academicians. Self-anointed intellectuals who think they have all the answers.

Problem is, they're re-hashing all the failed left wing political theories which have failed many times over. Still, our children and grandchildren are left holding the bag of debt for this cabal.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by BigE23:

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by GMM:
Who's he talking about? Well, the Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists who waged violent jihad in the name of Mohammed of course. But he didn't use the words "Islamic", "Muslim", "jihad", or anything like that. No, its his sacred duty as a leftist to defend the good name of Islam at all times.

"It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris," Obama said. "It is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that-the same way a big city mayor's got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive."

JMO, I think you're reaching. Describing the Muslims who took part in Paris as "violent, vicious zealots" is accurate. He could've described them as "male, French born, Muslim, violent, vicious zealots of medium height and medium build", but he didn't.

The cherry-picked quote leaves out the part where he said, "We devote enormous resources to dealing with that. It is right..."

... that Obama has never uttered the words "Islamic Terrorists".

Yeah, I am pretty sure this part is patently false. Otherwise I agree with your post, but if we're going to post every quote and every conservative blog about it, it seems kind of silly.

A bit of an overstatement isn't it, saying I'm posting EVERY quote and Conservative blog? BTW, I've never read a Conservative blog in my life. Posting grand sweeping generalizations, not based on fact seems sillier to me.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Re: Neville Chamberlin, is that you?

Originally posted by db:
Yeah because that's exactly analogous to the present situation.

Sheesh.

What seems to be out of line? Both Obama and Chamberlain failed to understand the gravity of the situation they were facing and believed they could negotiate deals with the enemy. Chamberlain - Germany; Obama - Iran. And both thought that the people they were negotiating with were dealing in good faith. Both were incredibly naïve....

 

[BTFU1986]

Re: Neville Chamberlin, is that you?

Originally posted by BigE23:

What seems to be out of line? Both Obama and Chamberlain failed to understand the gravity of the situation they were facing and believed they could negotiate deals with the enemy. Chamberlain - Russell; Obama - Iran. And both thought that the people they were negotiating with were dealing in good faith. Both were incredibly naïve....

Fixed your post

 

[db]

Well that was random

Iran is an interesting topic, but was never mentioned in this thread, at least not in this branch.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Not really.

Originally posted by db:
Iran is an interesting topic, but was never mentioned in this thread, at least not in this branch.

Iran is certainly part of the current situation.