Hey !, he did it, dropping the big mother.

[tytlyf]

Produce

Fine, 1 of many. Conservatives are backwards on climate change. And that's 1 of the most important things the world has to focus on.
Part of the problem is that Big Energy lobbies/controls republicans. So these Big Energy companies have 'vacations' for their bought representatives in congress. These exclusive 'vacations' teach these congresspeople what to say and what not to say.
Of course the fossil fuel industry is going to teach them to say that their pollution is harmless. Otherwise, they don't get the $$$$$.

 

[esmith]

Fine, 1 of many. Conservatives are backwards on climate change. And that's 1 of the most important things the world has to focus on.
Part of the problem is that Big Energy lobbies/controls republicans. So these Big Energy companies have 'vacations' for their bought representatives in congress. These exclusive 'vacations' teach these congresspeople what to say and what not to say.
Of course the fossil fuel industry is going to teach them to say that their pollution is harmless. Otherwise, they don't get the $$$$$.

There are zero references to what you call RW media bias in the above reply and if you go back you will see that I said "produce" examples of RW media bias.
As I expected you can't provide any and will not be able to except for opinion based media and not "news" media.
Now be aware that a media source reporting what someone has stated is not media bias as much as you would try and make it.

 

[tytlyf]

There are zero references to what you call RW media bias in the above reply and if you go back you will see that I said "produce" examples of RW media bias.
As I expected you can't provide any and will not be able to except for opinion based media and not "news" media.
Now be aware that a media source reporting what someone has stated is not media bias as much as you would try and make it.

RW media denies climate change. Wasn't that obvious in my statement?

 

[esmith]

RW media denies climate change. Wasn't that obvious in my statement?

you haven't given any proof other than your hearsay and as you are well aware when you make a statement you have to back it up with a credible link.

 

[tytlyf]

you haven't given any proof other than your hearsay and as you are well aware when you make a statement you have to back it up with a credible link.

You think I make that up? RW media is controlled by the establishment, which is why they're in lock-step with what Big Oil tells them.

Limbaugh: Lack of major hurricanes disproves climate change
Limbaugh: Climate Change ‘One Of The Biggest Scams Ever Perpetrated On The People Of The World’ [AUDIO]

 

[jonathan180iq]

Which one would you think could be more dangerous though ?.

That depends on where you live. Both are a threat to each other, and that's what we so easily forget on this side of the pond.

There's a certain sense of national pride and patriotism that we get when we see a "Never Forget - 9/11" bumper sticker on the back of a car, right? If a foreign nation was constantly flying bombing runs over the US with drones, blowing up pockets of bad guys but also destroying civilian buildings and lives in the process, wouldn't you likewise be a bit motivated to fight back and defend your sense of sovereignty?

This is why foreign policy is so hard and why we have to be a bit more discerning in our application of force abroad. This is also why fighting terror is more about ideas than it is about military might and death tolls.

So we killed ~100 militants with the MOAB... How many more Islamists how now been emboldened by our actions to defend their homeland and their way of life?

Not as black and white as we would like to make it, is it?

 

[Notanumber]

That depends on where you live. Both are a threat to each other, and that's what we so easily forget on this side of the pond.

There's a certain sense of national pride and patriotism that we get when we see a "Never Forget - 9/11" bumper sticker on the back of a car, right? If a foreign nation was constantly flying bombing runs over the US with drones, blowing up pockets of bad guys but also destroying civilian buildings and lives in the process, wouldn't you likewise be a bit motivated to fight back and defend your sense of sovereignty?

This is why foreign policy is so hard and why we have to be a bit more discerning in our application of force abroad. This is also why fighting terror is more about ideas than it is about military might and death tolls.

So we killed ~100 militants with the MOAB... How many more Islamists how now been emboldened by our actions to defend their homeland and their way of life?

Not as black and white as we would like to make it, is it?

The trouble is they become emboldened if you say something they don’t like about a bloke that lived 1400 years ago. Therefore, it doesn’t take much no matter what you do.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The trouble is they become emboldened if you say something they don’t like about a bloke that lived 1400 years ago. Therefore, it doesn’t take much no matter what you do.

Which is exactly why this is a war that must be won with discourse and diplomacy, and not using the same methods that have been ineffective for what seems like forever.

 

[Notanumber]

Which is exactly why this is a war that must be won with discourse and diplomacy, and not using the same methods that have been ineffective for what seems like forever.

How can you use discourse and diplomacy against an ideology that will settle for nothing less than world dominance?

 

[jonathan180iq]

How can you use discourse and diplomacy against an ideology that will settle for nothing less than world dominance?

Very carefully - and one person at a time...
You're going to have to engage in conversation with people who you otherwise would not engage with. Bring people to the negotiating table that have been deemed nonnegotiable and settle petty arguments at least for the sake of global stability.

I've no problem at all with retaliatory strategic strikes on armaments and weapons caches. Large scale violence can only be curbed by limiting access to munitions. But the long term viability of making any real progress in this war on terror is going to be multifaceted, requiring more diplomacy and outreach than military interaction.

In any conflict, you have to at least convince the other party that you aren't as horrible as perhaps they want to make you out to be. It's just as possible to remove the psychological arms which they use to demonize you as part of a recruiting tool as it is to destroy their physical arms - do you follow? Both aspects are necessary parts of disarmament.

 

[Notanumber]

Very carefully - and one person at a time...
You're going to have to engage in conversation with people who you otherwise would not engage with. Bring people to the negotiating table that have been deemed nonnegotiable and settle petty arguments at least for the sake of global stability.

I've no problem at all with retaliatory strategic strikes on armaments and weapons caches. Large scale violence can only be curbed by limiting access to munitions. But the long term viability of making any real progress in this war on terror is going to be multifaceted, requiring more diplomacy and outreach than military interaction.

In any conflict, you have to at least convince the other party that you aren't as horrible as perhaps they want to make you out to be. It's just as possible to remove the psychological arms which they use to demonize you as part of a recruiting tool as it is to destroy their physical arms - do you follow? Both aspects are necessary parts of disarmament.

Good luck with that.

It did not work with the Nazis or the Japanese in WWII.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Good luck with that.

It did not work with the Nazis or the Japanese in WWII.

That's because we're talking about combat on two entirely different levels. Fighting an amorphous body of guerrillas is nothing like fighting a national military - That's exactly why we aren't "winning" after decades worth of invovlement

 

[psychoslice]

That depends on where you live. Both are a threat to each other, and that's what we so easily forget on this side of the pond.

There's a certain sense of national pride and patriotism that we get when we see a "Never Forget - 9/11" bumper sticker on the back of a car, right? If a foreign nation was constantly flying bombing runs over the US with drones, blowing up pockets of bad guys but also destroying civilian buildings and lives in the process, wouldn't you likewise be a bit motivated to fight back and defend your sense of sovereignty?

This is why foreign policy is so hard and why we have to be a bit more discerning in our application of force abroad. This is also why fighting terror is more about ideas than it is about military might and death tolls.

So we killed ~100 militants with the MOAB... How many more Islamists how now been emboldened by our actions to defend their homeland and their way of life?

Not as black and white as we would like to make it, is it?

Yes that is also true, but you have to admit that Muslims are or seem to be much more dangerous than any other relgion right now throughout the world ?.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Yes that is also true, but you have to admit that Muslims are or seem to be much more dangerous than any other relgion right now throughout the world ?.

They are currently the flavor of the month, yes.

I think it's important to remember that the "WHY" of an issue is just as important as the simple observations... So, I'd ask you to consider how and why Jihadis saw themselves as a necessary group in the first place. WHY are Muslims currently considered the most dangerous religious group in the world? What caused their current extremist movements? What spawned ISIS? What spawned the Taliban? Why was the Mujaheddin created? Informing ourselves on the origin of a thing will better help us understand that thing and allow us to approach it correctly. You can't fight a disease if you don't know what it is, you know what I mean?

 

[tytlyf]

Yes that is also true, but you have to admit that Muslims are or seem to be much more dangerous than any other relgion right now throughout the world ?.

More dangerous? I'd say 99%+ are innocent. Some would argue that christians are more dangerous. They use bombs and kill a lot more people.

 

[esmith]

You think I make that up? RW media is controlled by the establishment, which is why they're in lock-step with what Big Oil tells them.

Limbaugh: Lack of major hurricanes disproves climate change
Limbaugh: Climate Change ‘One Of The Biggest Scams Ever Perpetrated On The People Of The World’ [AUDIO]

Limbaugh is a opinion source not a "news source"

 

[psychoslice]

They are currently the flavor of the month, yes.

I think it's important to remember that the "WHY" of an issue is just as important as the simple observations... So, I'd ask you to consider how and why Jihadis saw themselves as a necessary group in the first place. WHY are Muslims currently considered the most dangerous religious group in the world? What caused their current extremist movements? What spawned ISIS? What spawned the Taliban? Why was the Mujaheddin created? Informing ourselves on the origin of a thing will better help us understand that thing and allow us to approach it correctly. You can't fight a disease if you don't know what it is, you know what I mean?

What spawned ISIS?, the teachings from their scriptures when taken literally.

 

[psychoslice]

More dangerous? I'd say 99%+ are innocent. Some would argue that christians are more dangerous. They use bombs and kill a lot more people.

I can't agree.

 

[jonathan180iq]

What spawned ISIS?, the teachings from their scriptures when taken literally.

They arose in response to what action(s)?

 

[averageJOE]

What spawned ISIS?

A regime change war.