Posted by bheid408 on 1/31/2016 9:30:00 PM (view original):
In one press conference after another, when referring to the Muslim terror super-group ISIS, United States President Barack Obama will use the term ISIL instead of their former name ISIS or current name Islamic State. Have you ever wondered about that? We have.

ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. Now, to us Westerners we don’t really make much of a distinction, do we? No, honestly from our perspective its all about the same. But how would a Muslim living in the Middle East view it? Just what is the Levant anyway? Let’s take a look.

The geographical term LEVANT refers to a multi-nation region in the Middle East. It’s a land bridge between Turkey to the north and Egypt to the south. If you look on a map, however, in the near exact middle of the nations that comprise the Levant, guess what you see? Come on, guess!

It all has to do with the nation of Israel.


When Barack Obama refers over and over to the Islamic State as ISIL, he is sending a message to Muslims all over the Middle East that he personally does not recognize Israel as a sovereign nation, but as territory belonging to the Islamic State.

Now you know why Obama says that he has no plan, no goal, and no stated aim for dealing with ISIS. But he does have a plan, and it’s a really nasty, diabolical one. Obama’s plan is to drag his feet for as long as he can, doing only the bare minimum that Congress forces him to do. His “plan”to buy ISIS as much time as possible to make as many gains as they can.

And it’s working.

The Islamic State has garnered millions of dollars, a vast cache of weapons, and in their latest foray have captured Syrian fighter jets. With each passing day that Obama fulfills his stated aim of doing nothing, the Islamic State grows by leaps and bounds. The ultimate goal, of course, has not changed and will never change.

The ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel.

Now you know a little bit more why Obama chooses his words so carefully, and what’s really in a name.

Obama's foreign policy may be inept.  But you're in "tin-foil hat" territory when you make him part of a nefarious conspiracy to destroy Israel.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/31/2016 10:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/31/2016 9:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/29/2016 8:52:00 PM (view original):
Well, if we hadn't decided a military response was the correct action following 9/11, and had done nothing instead, ISIS wouldn't exist.  Al Q'aida is bigger now than it was then, but that might have happened anyway.  So I guess we can just blame ISIS on our military activities in the Middle East.

So yeah, doing nothing would have been better.  Unambiguously so.

He's talking specifically about ISIS, tec. That's enough enough of a hint that he isn't talking about the war in Afghanistan.

You might notice that he does not mention the name of any particular country in this post.  He only mentions "Middle East".

Which countries were the target of the US military response in the Middle East following 9/11?

Hint: there are two.  One was a direct response to 9/11.  The other was supposedly related to the broader war on terror, and not specifically 9/11.

Yes, we invaded two countries. Only one, though, is the primary home of ISIS. Which is what we were talking about. Which is why it was odd that you said we had to respond to the 9/11 attacks.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/31/2016 10:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/31/2016 10:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/31/2016 9:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/29/2016 8:52:00 PM (view original):
Well, if we hadn't decided a military response was the correct action following 9/11, and had done nothing instead, ISIS wouldn't exist.  Al Q'aida is bigger now than it was then, but that might have happened anyway.  So I guess we can just blame ISIS on our military activities in the Middle East.

So yeah, doing nothing would have been better.  Unambiguously so.

He's talking specifically about ISIS, tec. That's enough enough of a hint that he isn't talking about the war in Afghanistan.

You might notice that he does not mention the name of any particular country in this post.  He only mentions "Middle East".

Which countries were the target of the US military response in the Middle East following 9/11?

Hint: there are two.  One was a direct response to 9/11.  The other was supposedly related to the broader war on terror, and not specifically 9/11.

Yes, we invaded two countries. Only one, though, is the primary home of ISIS. Which is what we were talking about. Which is why it was odd that you said we had to respond to the 9/11 attacks.

Clearly, you don't know what "we're" talking about.  Maybe you shouldn't try to insert yourselves into discussions when you don't understand what is being discussed.  Or are you that desperate for attention?  Maybe you should get a dog.

How was ISIS involved in 9/11?

Posted by tecwrg on 1/31/2016 10:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/31/2016 10:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/31/2016 10:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/31/2016 9:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/29/2016 8:52:00 PM (view original):
Well, if we hadn't decided a military response was the correct action following 9/11, and had done nothing instead, ISIS wouldn't exist.  Al Q'aida is bigger now than it was then, but that might have happened anyway.  So I guess we can just blame ISIS on our military activities in the Middle East.

So yeah, doing nothing would have been better.  Unambiguously so.

He's talking specifically about ISIS, tec. That's enough enough of a hint that he isn't talking about the war in Afghanistan.

You might notice that he does not mention the name of any particular country in this post.  He only mentions "Middle East".

Which countries were the target of the US military response in the Middle East following 9/11?

Hint: there are two.  One was a direct response to 9/11.  The other was supposedly related to the broader war on terror, and not specifically 9/11.

Yes, we invaded two countries. Only one, though, is the primary home of ISIS. Which is what we were talking about. Which is why it was odd that you said we had to respond to the 9/11 attacks.

Clearly, you don't know what "we're" talking about.  Maybe you shouldn't try to insert yourselves into discussions when you don't understand what is being discussed.  Or are you that desperate for attention?  Maybe you should get a dog.

How was ISIS involved in 9/11?

Well, let's walk through this.

- You and I were arguing about whether or not you were pro-war regarding ISIS.

- dahs said a fight against a group as big as ISIS counts as a war.

- Mike and dahs got into it about taking out ISIS leaders. dahs said (sarcastically) that taking out al queda leaders worked so well before.

- Mike called dahs mr. donothing

- Dahs said yeah, we made ISIS worse by invading in the first place.

- You responded with "9/11 happened, should we have just shrugged it off."

You were clearly responding to dahs' argument that our decision to invade the Middle East made ISIS worse.

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/30/2016 12:53:00 PM (view original):
You guys have given me a lot of **** for about a forum page.

Nobody has even tried to pretend they can refute the point.

Military response made things worse.  Period.  You can make all the bullshit tangential responses you want.  The point is irrefutable.  Military action led to more, bigger, and better-funded terror organizations than ever existed before.  Again, this is an unambiguous fact, which is why nobody is addressing the actual point.

What dahs said.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/30/2016 1:03:00 PM (view original):
What is your actual point?

Terrorists kill 3,000 people on a beautiful Tuesday morning.  We should shrug it off a a bummer?

Great point!  Tell us more!

Your immediate response.