ISIL leader believed to have fled coup attempt

[Peter1469]

Oh, it's a fact, Pete. So easy to show yourself supporting overt action prior to November of 2015 and prove me wrong. Just point to the thread and post number we both know doesn't exist. It was November of 2015 when you finally came hat in hand to the Neocon tent and asked to come in. I, of course, took you in with open arms. Scolded you and schooled you, mind you, but accepted you anyways. I just couldn't have you lookin the idiot at your employer water cooler. Your work cafeteria deserved better.

You are funny.

[Tahuyaman]

He is an armchair general and can be foolish at times.

could you tell me where he sees your supposed inconsistency on this issue? I don't see it and he's not able to explain it. So, I'm not seeing what he's seeing.

[Peter1469]

could you tell me where he sees your supposed inconsistency on this issue? I don't see it and he's not able to explain it. So, I'm not seeing what he's seeing.

It isn't there. He doesn't understand the use of military force to achieve a nation's stated interests.

He is confusing general discussions with specific discussion that centered around an End, Ways, Means strategic analysis, which through him for a loop, since he has no idea what that means.

[donttread]

As I mentioned his name, I'll offer him a chance to defend his record. @donttread I don't want to misrepresent you in any way so please, take this opportunity to correct me if I've made errors. Not 5 weeks before the November 2015 ISIL attacks on Paris, you did claim the threat matrix was made up. Fake? Something about them being as much of a threat as a house cat is to it's owner or something like that.

Peter....you can as well merely point to the date you finally realized overt US military involvement would be required after vehemently opposing such involvement for reasons I listed. We both know it was a Friday the 13th. In November. Of 2015. You are as well free to post the record here if I've gotten that wrong. I haven't.

ISIL did not invade or attack America, which is where our troops should mostly be BTW.. They attacked Paris and they did so, in fact they EXISTED , because neocons like you had been poking the bee hive filled with crazies too long and they typically LACK the ability to wage conventional war . ISIS was an exception and proof that interventionism has STRENGTHEN terrorist organizations.
For God's sake @Ransom how much more involved in other people's business would you have us be? You have said before that you feel EVEN MORE WAR OR OCCUPATION was needed to prevent the rise of ISIS. When in fact their rise was inevitable because of western intervention , not in spite of it!
Face it our imperialistic tendencies have failed the people and stunted our alternate energy development and foreign relations by decades . Sure Exxon, Cheny, politicians , Blackwater and many others benefited . While the people lost their sons and daughters , subsidized oil prices , and watched the national debt soar. We were repeatedly lied to by the government about why we sent their sons and daughters to kill or die and it was mostly UNNECESSARY.

[Ransom]

You are funny.

Not as funny as you did that Fri the 13th hat in hand knocking at the Neocon door.

[Tahuyaman]

It isn't there. He doesn't understand the use of military force to achieve a nation's stated interests.

He is confusing general discussions with specific discussion that centered around an End, Ways, Means strategic analysis, which through him for a loop, since he has no idea what that means.

I think he's just confused. Period.

[Ransom]

ISIL did not invade or attack America, which is where our troops should mostly be BTW.. They attacked Paris and they did so, in fact they EXISTED , because neocons like you had been poking the bee hive filled with crazies too long and they typically LACK the ability to wage conventional war . ISIS was an exception and proof that interventionism has STRENGTHEN terrorist organizations.

They existed wasn't your argument 5 weeks before Paris my only point, donttread. And our overt involvement....that you also supported post Nov 2015 did in fact weaken terrorism. As it's done since both World Wars.

For God's sake @Ransom how much more involved in other people's business would you have us be? You have said before that you feel EVEN MORE WAR OR OCCUPATION was needed to prevent the rise of ISIS. When in fact their rise was inevitable because of western intervention , not in spite of it!

I answered how much more involved during our discussions on ISIL. The Islamic State was my 'how much more and thus opined that we should get involved. Asap. And thus I had called for overt US involvement while I got lectured about mission creep and while you explained to me the Islamic State in fact wasn't real. It was made up. A boogieman. You mocked threat analysis given by our government department heads, Peter told me threat conclusions were inspired by government funding needs. And the Islamic State's rise wasn't because of intervention by us, just the opposite.

Face it our imperialistic tendencies have failed the people and stunted our alternate energy development and foreign relations by decades . Sure Exxon, Cheny, politicians , Blackwater and many others benefited . While the people lost their sons and daughters , subsidized oil prices , and watched the national debt soar. We were repeatedly lied to by the government about why we sent their sons and daughters to kill or die and it was mostly UNNECESSARY.

I'm sure that sounds good at a college or university.

[Ransom]

could you tell me where he sees your supposed inconsistency on this issue? I don't see it and he's not able to explain it. So, I'm not seeing what he's seeing.

@Peter1469 can you help Tahuyaman out?

[Tahuyaman]

@Peter1469 can you help Tahuyaman out?

He did. I still don't know what your problem is.

I generally don't have a problem with you. It's just that you aren't explaining yourself well on this one.

[PJL]

ISIL did not invade or attack America, which is where our troops should mostly be BTW.. They attacked Paris and they did so, in fact they EXISTED , because neocons like you had been poking the bee hive filled with crazies too long and they typically LACK the ability to wage conventional war . ISIS was an exception and proof that interventionism has STRENGTHEN terrorist organizations. For God's sake @Ransom how much more involved in other people's business would you have us be? You have said before that you feel EVEN MORE WAR OR OCCUPATION was needed to prevent the rise of ISIS. When in fact their rise was inevitable because of western intervention , not in spite of it! Face it our imperialistic tendencies have failed the people and stunted our alternate energy development and foreign relations by decades . Sure Exxon, Cheny, politicians , Blackwater and many others benefited . While the people lost their sons and daughters , subsidized oil prices , and watched the national debt soar. We were repeatedly lied to by the government about why we sent their sons and daughters to kill or die and it was mostly UNNECESSARY.

I agree with this post entirely . It is fact . I don't understand why some Americans refuse to acknowledge this , and instead , label anyone who does as either a commie , a socialist or some kind of anti-American pariah . The brave thing to do is acknowledge a problem - the cowardly thing is to do is wallow in destructive denial , and let a problem fester until it's too late to fix things. Americans are in a big dilemma and they really need to decide what really is important to them , their children and their future......I believe it's that serious.