Sounds like you're justifying ISIS's  actions. True, that was typical of 
conquering armies in the past due to the practicality of waging war. However we 
consider our selves a *bit* more civilized today. We don't target innocent 
civilians, force them to convert and then kill them anyway, we don't steel 
supplies, we buy it if we don't bring it and we observe a uniform code of  
military conduct observed by almost all nations. <BTW, we took nothing material 
from the Native Americans. Even they said *nobody owned the land*, so it wasn't 
theirs either by their own logic. We did give them about 24 dollars and some 
beads for Manhattan and perpetual welfare for  next to eternity along with a 
reservation if they wanted to stay there. Not saying it was a good deal for 
NAs, but it was the best that could offered at the time. Had Europeans never 
made it to the Americas, they, NAs, would still be living in the stone age 
today, chasing buffalo herds on foot, living in
 *harmony* with nature, and killing each other over hunting grounds. Some times 
*change* requires a phase transition. 

On Saturday, October 11, 2014 8:24 PM, " [FairfieldLife]" 
<> wrote:

Christian Crusaders did the same thing, and don't fool yourself, if Americans 
ever "conquered" a country, we'd do the same thing too.

Ask any American Indian tribe if you need examples.


---In, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

They're supplied the same way Mohammed supplied his *army*. They just take 
whatever they want, wherever they go. Whether it's money from banks, food from 
stockpiles, or weapons, ammunition and transportation from Iraqi army bases. 
This is your Islamic *work ethic*. Real work is for mensches.

On Saturday, October 11, 2014 2:18 PM, "'Richard J. Williams'
punditster@... [FairfieldLife]" <> wrote:

On 10/11/2014 2:42 PM, jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:

>>Something is wrong with the US generals' assessment of
>There is no good news coming out of the Middle East - the U.S.
supports the Saudis who are Shite Muslims; and at the same time
Iranians support the Shiite in Baghdad. But, the ISIS are Sunnis
who hate everyone, Muslim and infidel alike. Then, there's Assad
to deal with. The only bright spot over there is Israel, the only
democracy in the whole Middle East. Go figure.
>How is it possible for the militants to continue fighting
in Iraq and Syria with supposedly only 30,000 fighters?
>>It appears that the militant rebels in or near Baghdad
are self-sufficient to fight on their own without help
from their Syrian headquarters.  So, that means they're
getting food, supplies and ammunition within Baghdad
>>I wouldn't be surprised if a secret faction within the ISF is providing the 
>>weapons and ammunition to fight the
loyal troopers of Iraq.
>"Without large numbers of American troops on the ground in Iraq,
we lack the ability to choose targets, to rebuild the capacity of
the Iraqi Army quickly and successfully, to constrain the Shiite
government from pursuing a sectarian agenda. Without large numbers
of troops in Syria, we are unable to distinguish between friend
and foe, to train and direct non-Qaeda opposition forces, to
address the humanitarian crisis, and to prepare for—and hasten—a
world without Bashar Assad."
>'Only American ground troops can defeat the Islamic State'
>The Washington Free Beacon:
>>---In, mailto:punditster@... wrote :
>>Our side is suffering serious defeats on the
battlefield in Anbar province and Baghdad is ripe for infiltration. Then,
it's a
guerrilla war in the streets with up close and
personal close
range fighting.
>>According to President Obama, it's a war
against the Islamic
State, but who are they? The goal is to roll back
the IS in Iraq
and contain it in Syria. Soon, Turkey will be pulled
into the
fight - the ISIS are at the gates today, tomorrow
Istanbul and
onwards to Rome.
>>"With the outlying suburb of Abu Ghraib teetering on
falling to ISIS, if the area comes under complete
control of the Islamists, the Americans will be within easy range of
>>'ISIS reaches Baghdad suburbs, US troops block the
way to BGW Int'l Airport'

  • [FairfieldLife]... 'Richard J. Williams' [FairfieldLife]
    • [Fairfield... 'Richard J. Williams' [FairfieldLife]
      • Re: [F... Mike Dixon [FairfieldLife]
    • [Fairfield... [FairfieldLife]
      • Re: [F... 'Richard J. Williams' [FairfieldLife]
        • Re... Mike Dixon [FairfieldLife]
          • ... [FairfieldLife]
            • ... Mike Dixon [FairfieldLife]
              • ... [FairfieldLife]
                • ... 'Richard J. Williams' [FairfieldLife]
            • ... 'Richard J. Williams' [FairfieldLife]

Reply via email to