90 Christians taken

They want a war and it's time the world gave them one.

Not good, another video forthcoming.

ISIS is calling those taken Crusaders.

Quote:ISIS' online radio station, al-Bayan, said in a report Tuesday that ISIS fighters had detained myriad "crusaders" and seized 10 villages around Tal Tamr after clashes with Kurdish militiamen. ISIS frequently refers to Christians as "crusaders." Syria's official SANA news agency reported that ISIS overran seven villages during an attack on Monday.

Unfortunately we have a president that has already staked his position on the wrong side of this fight.

Quote: I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

I believe he was speaking about Muslims in the US, but it's pretty safe to say his line of thought applies to those in the middle east as well.

Just a "random" act. Obama says this isn't about religion.

(02-24-2015 12:08 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Just a "random" act. Obama says this isn't about religion.

It's the start of the Holy Wars. Unfortunately for us, O will drag his feet at every opportunity until he is out of office and this will be a situation that will be beyond control by that point.


Where is the UN on this I wonder?

Murderous Islamist scum... Crusaders.

Eh, I'm fine with the moniker.

(02-24-2015 11:34 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  90 Christians taken

They want a war and it's time the world gave them one.

Damn straight.

(02-24-2015 12:34 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 11:34 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  90 Christians taken

They want a war and it's time the world gave them one.

Damn straight.

Cue the limp wristed, liberal wet blankets saying:

"Why don't you go?"
"Would you let your child go?"
"It's not our problem. Let the Middle East handle it."
"ISIS isn't a threat to us."
"Obama... oooooomg Obama *orgasm*"

I'm not sure there could be a worse time to have a left wing ideologue in office.

I've been gung ho as anyone about killing the radical Muslims.

But I have begun to suspect they are simply pawns being used by much more sinister elements to drum up anger (rightfully so) in Christians and non muslims. Why? To create a tactical religious war that stretches to every corner of the globe. It may not be called "world war 3', but it truly is becoming a global war. It has nearly spread to all 4 corners of the Earth.

I suspect we will see more "lone wolf" attacks here in the US. Which will naturally only anger Americans that much more , as we begin to demand more blood in return.

The other purpose here may well be to gather the Christian political powers in American and Europe together to form a new political body with a single spokesman. This person would align next to Pope Bergoglio, and call him "Holy Father", the 'Vicar of Christ", which is a GROSS abomination & blasphemy to God the Father and His Son.

Bergoglio begun calling for action against the Jihad last week. That was the beginning of it imo.

Not very "Pope" like to be calling for war, or is it? They have actually been doing this for nearly 2000 years now. The pope was the single most powerful man in the world during the 1000+ year middle ages. Even today, there is not a world leader in the whole free world who so much as lets a fart without consulting the Pope first.

Even Obama, who is likely an atheist or agnostic, directly consults the Pope on EVERY major decision in foreign affairs.

The world truly marvels at this person. How in the world did a religious preacher become so powerful in world wide affairs for the last 2000 years? Read up on him in world history and Revelation. Look deeper than just wiki alone.

(02-24-2015 12:41 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 12:34 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 11:34 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  90 Christians taken

They want a war and it's time the world gave them one.

Damn straight.

Cue the limp wristed, liberal wet blankets saying:

"Why don't you go?"
"Would you let your child go?"
"It's not our problem. Let the Middle East handle it."
"ISIS isn't a threat to us."
"Obama... oooooomg Obama *orgasm*"

If they would take 34 year old colorblind men that have already had a heart attack and need a knee replaced of course I would go.

Absolutely I would let my son or daughter serve.

Aren't liberals the once generally preaching about being 'citizens of the world'? Besides, we don't have a choice as to get involved or not.

They're killing Christians, if you are Christian, ISIS is a threat.

As for the last one, whatever people do in their bedrooms or behind their computers is up to them. Hoepfully they will injure themselves and not be able to procreate.

I realize that people are outraged, but I feel it's better to allow Egypt to form an Arabian Coalition and support this coalition. I'm not going to pretend that President Obama has handled this situation fine, because he has done a terrible job thus far. But going in there gung ho isn't the best solution either.

(02-24-2015 01:10 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I realize that people are outraged, but I feel it's better to allow Egypt to form an Arabian Coalition and support this coalition. I'm not going to pretend that President Obama has handled this situation fine, because he has done a terrible job thus far. But going in there gung ho isn't the best solution either.

The gap between what Obama is doing(or not doing) and going in there gung ho is rather large wouldn't you say. The answer lays in that gap.

(02-24-2015 01:25 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 01:10 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I realize that people are outraged, but I feel it's better to allow Egypt to form an Arabian Coalition and support this coalition. I'm not going to pretend that President Obama has handled this situation fine, because he has done a terrible job thus far. But going in there gung ho isn't the best solution either.

The gap between what Obama is doing(or not doing) and going in there gung ho is rather large wouldn't you say. The answer lays in that gap.

Yes, but I get a tremendous feeling from those via facebook and message board communities that we must go in there gung ho and eliminate ISIS. The fact that is going in there to defeat ISIS means that we'll be helping Iran, Assad, and Hezbollah scares me. The more and more I read about this, I think that the Arabians need to get together (which Egypt is attempting to do) and defeat this group, with American support (ammo, cash etc).

(02-24-2015 01:28 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 01:25 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 01:10 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I realize that people are outraged, but I feel it's better to allow Egypt to form an Arabian Coalition and support this coalition. I'm not going to pretend that President Obama has handled this situation fine, because he has done a terrible job thus far. But going in there gung ho isn't the best solution either.

The gap between what Obama is doing(or not doing) and going in there gung ho is rather large wouldn't you say. The answer lays in that gap.

Yes, but I get a tremendous feeling from those via facebook and message board communities that we must go in there gung ho and eliminate ISIS. The fact that is going in there to defeat ISIS means that we'll be helping Iran, Assad, and Hezbollah scares me. The more and more I read about this, I think that the Arabians need to get together (which Egypt is attempting to do) and defeat this group, with American support (ammo, cash etc).

I'm one of those proponents for ground forces. But I lament the term gung ho since it basically implies just going in there without a strategy, which is not what I want and I doubt what any American wants. But every General and military expert that says the only way to defeat them is by using some troops. Now should we form a coalition and work with them? Absolutely, but we have to lead and we also need to be careful about sharing arms with this nations since they have a habit of being used against us, so I think a basic strategy of just offering arms to people in the area is a very dangerous strategy.

Now as far as what happens after we defeat ISIS, those are valid questions, but to not act and stop genocide and mass killings for the sake of what we can't predict is fallacy in my opinion.

(02-24-2015 02:15 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 01:28 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 01:25 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 01:10 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I realize that people are outraged, but I feel it's better to allow Egypt to form an Arabian Coalition and support this coalition. I'm not going to pretend that President Obama has handled this situation fine, because he has done a terrible job thus far. But going in there gung ho isn't the best solution either.

The gap between what Obama is doing(or not doing) and going in there gung ho is rather large wouldn't you say. The answer lays in that gap.

Yes, but I get a tremendous feeling from those via facebook and message board communities that we must go in there gung ho and eliminate ISIS. The fact that is going in there to defeat ISIS means that we'll be helping Iran, Assad, and Hezbollah scares me. The more and more I read about this, I think that the Arabians need to get together (which Egypt is attempting to do) and defeat this group, with American support (ammo, cash etc).

I'm one of those proponents for ground forces. But I lament the term gung ho since it basically implies just going in there without a strategy, which is not what I want and I doubt what any American wants. But every General and military expert that says the only way to defeat them is by using some troops. Now should we form a coalition and work with them? Absolutely, but we have to lead and we also need to be careful about sharing arms with this nations since they have a habit of being used against us, so I think a basic strategy of just offering arms to people in the area is a very dangerous strategy.

Now as far as what happens after we defeat ISIS, those are valid questions, but to not act and stop genocide and mass killings for the sake of what we can't predict is fallacy in my opinion.

Morally one might think so. Then again, we were buddies with Hussein for quite a while and he was doing the same thing. Also, we couldn't invade every place where people are doing mass executions, torture, etc.

(02-24-2015 02:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 02:15 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 01:28 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 01:25 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 01:10 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I realize that people are outraged, but I feel it's better to allow Egypt to form an Arabian Coalition and support this coalition. I'm not going to pretend that President Obama has handled this situation fine, because he has done a terrible job thus far. But going in there gung ho isn't the best solution either.

The gap between what Obama is doing(or not doing) and going in there gung ho is rather large wouldn't you say. The answer lays in that gap.

Yes, but I get a tremendous feeling from those via facebook and message board communities that we must go in there gung ho and eliminate ISIS. The fact that is going in there to defeat ISIS means that we'll be helping Iran, Assad, and Hezbollah scares me. The more and more I read about this, I think that the Arabians need to get together (which Egypt is attempting to do) and defeat this group, with American support (ammo, cash etc).

I'm one of those proponents for ground forces. But I lament the term gung ho since it basically implies just going in there without a strategy, which is not what I want and I doubt what any American wants. But every General and military expert that says the only way to defeat them is by using some troops. Now should we form a coalition and work with them? Absolutely, but we have to lead and we also need to be careful about sharing arms with this nations since they have a habit of being used against us, so I think a basic strategy of just offering arms to people in the area is a very dangerous strategy.

Now as far as what happens after we defeat ISIS, those are valid questions, but to not act and stop genocide and mass killings for the sake of what we can't predict is fallacy in my opinion.

Morally one might think so. Then again, we were buddies with Hussein for quite a while and he was doing the same thing. Also, we couldn't invade every place where people are doing mass executions, torture, etc.

That's true that we can't attack everyone that is committing mass murder, however those that are killing US citizens and are a threat either directly or indirectly to the US in my opinion should apply as groups to destroy. ISIS presents both of these problems.

(02-24-2015 12:54 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  I've been gung ho as anyone about killing the radical Muslims.

But I have begun to suspect they are simply pawns being used by much more sinister elements to drum up anger (rightfully so) in Christians and non muslims. Why? To create a tactical religious war that stretches to every corner of the globe. It may not be called "world war 3', but it truly is becoming a global war. It has nearly spread to all 4 corners of the Earth.

I suspect we will see more "lone wolf" attacks here in the US. Which will naturally only anger Americans that much more , as we begin to demand more blood in return.

The other purpose here may well be to gather the Christian political powers in American and Europe together to form a new political body with a single spokesman. This person would align next to the Pope Bergoglio, and call him "Holy Father", the 'Vicar of Christ", which is a GROSS abomination & blasphemy to God the Father and His Son.

Bergoglio begun calling for action against the Jihad last week. That was the beginning of it imo.

Not very "Pope" like to be calling for war, or is it? They have actually been doing this for nearly 2000 years now. The pope was the single most powerful man in the world during the 1000+ year middle ages. Even today, there is not a world leader in the whole free world who so much as lets a fart without consulting the Pope first.

Even Obama, who is likely an atheist or agnostic, directly consults the Pope on EVERY major decision in foreign affairs.

The world truly marvels at this person. How in the world did a religious preacher become so powerful in world wide affairs for the last 2000 years? Read up on him in world history and Revelation. Look deeper than just wiki alone.

I am interested in this subject greatly. Can you provide me with reference links to explore this further?

I find it funny that when Obama decided a couple years ago to get involved in Syria, everyone was mad because he was getting into somebody else's business. Now everyone is mad that he won't get in to somebody else's business. Strange.

By the way, I am all for wiping out every bit of ISIS. Don't want to be labeled as a liberal or anything like that.

(02-24-2015 02:37 PM)bamaEagle Wrote:  I find it funny that when Obama decided a couple years ago to get involved in Syria, everyone was mad because he was getting into somebody else's business. Now everyone is mad that he won't get in to somebody else's business. Strange.

By the way, I am all for wiping out every bit of ISIS. Don't want to be labeled as a liberal or anything like that.

It's a middle east affair. Pass.